Other Blogs
Check out other Legal AI Posts
Crafted with love️ by Fyresite
AI makes legal work faster, but ethics rules say lawyers can still charge full fees—here’s why value, not time, determines what's fair.
Generative AI tools are rapidly reshaping how law firms operate. These technologies assist with drafting contracts, analyzing discovery documents, summarizing case law, and conducting legal research in minutes instead of hours. For many legal professionals, these tools are becoming everyday companions — boosting speed and productivity across a range of tasks.
But as AI transforms the legal workflow, it raises important questions. Should legal fees go down just because a task takes less time? If AI makes legal work faster, does that automatically make it less valuable? How should lawyers price their services when time is no longer the clearest measure of value? These questions are central to how legal services are delivered and billed in the modern era.
Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence systems that can produce original content based on prompts or data inputs. These tools can draft text, summarize documents, analyze legal arguments, and assist with decision-making by processing large volumes of information quickly and efficiently. In the legal industry, this technology is transforming how routine but important tasks are completed.
Law firms are using generative AI to:
One tool on the rise among law firms — particularly those focused on plaintiff-side work — is ProPlaintiff. It’s designed to streamline case development and legal research by offering AI-enhanced workflows tailored to areas like personal injury, employment law, and mass torts. ProPlaintiff helps firms generate drafts, organize information, and identify key legal issues with greater efficiency.
Meanwhile, some lawyers experiment with general-purpose tools like ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas or explain legal concepts in plain language. However, these lower-cost or free tools come with serious limitations — they are not HIPAA- or SOC 2-compliant, making them unsuitable for handling sensitive client data or regulated information. Using these tools without proper safeguards could expose firms to ethical or data security risks.
Despite their speed, AI tools do not replace legal expertise. Attorneys must still interpret, validate, and apply AI-generated content to meet professional standards. Knowing when and how to use these technologies — and when to avoid them — is now an essential part of practicing law responsibly.
At the center of ethical billing in the legal profession is Rule 1.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule requires that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable, and it outlines several factors to consider, including:
Importantly, time is just one factor — and not the most important one. The rule recognizes that value, complexity, and expertise all contribute to whether a fee is reasonable.
With the introduction of generative AI, the “time and labor” element often shrinks. A contract that might have taken six hours to draft manually can now be produced in one hour with AI assistance. But that doesn't automatically make the work less valuable. In fact, effectively using AI to deliver high-quality legal work requires new types of skill, including technical proficiency, legal judgment, and the ability to evaluate AI-generated results for errors or hallucinations.
This issue is explored in depth in the Virginia State Bar’s Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 – Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, published as a draft on March 20, 2025. The opinion clarifies that lawyers are not ethically obligated to reduce their fees just because they use AI to work more efficiently. Instead, what matters is whether the overall fee is reasonable when measured against all the Rule 1.5 factors — especially the lawyer’s expertise, the value delivered to the client, and the complexity of the matter.
You can read the full draft opinion here: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 – Virginia State Bar (PDF)
In short, Rule 1.5 supports a value-based approach to billing — one that reflects the quality and effectiveness of legal service, not just how long it took to produce.
As AI becomes more integrated into legal practice, one of the most important ethical responsibilities lawyers face is transparency. Under Rule 1.5(b), attorneys must clearly communicate the basis of their fees — especially when those fees are not tied to hourly billing.
This becomes critical when generative AI tools significantly reduce the time spent on a task. From a client’s perspective, they may wonder why they’re being charged the same amount for something that took a fraction of the time. It’s the lawyer’s responsibility to explain that value isn't just about time — it's about expertise, outcome, and the ability to deliver high-quality work efficiently.
Clients should understand that:
For example, a lawyer might explain that the use of tools like ProPlaintiff allows them to deliver more thorough and consistent legal documents while still ensuring compliance with all relevant rules. Or, they might note that while a document was generated in less time, it required careful review, legal analysis, and customization to the client’s specific situation.
Ultimately, clear communication helps build trust. It shows that the lawyer is not just using technology to increase profit margins but to improve service quality — and that the client is still receiving value worthy of the fee.
Not all legal ethics bodies see the use of AI in billing the same way. While the Virginia State Bar has taken a practical, value-based stance in its Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, other jurisdictions have expressed concerns about the fairness of charging full fees for AI-assisted work.
In ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024), the American Bar Association cautions that in flat or contingent fee arrangements, it may be unreasonable to charge the same fee for work completed significantly faster using AI tools. The opinion suggests that if generative AI drastically reduces time spent, lawyers may need to reassess whether their fees still reflect a reasonable value to the client.
Similarly, North Carolina’s 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 warns against billing clients based on the "time-value represented" by work if the lawyer’s actual time investment was greatly reduced due to AI. While the opinion allows that flat fees may still be appropriate, it implies that those fees should potentially be adjusted in light of AI-driven efficiencies.
However, Virginia’s Legal Ethics Committee disagrees with these positions. In Opinion 1901, it states clearly that the use of generative AI does not, by itself, make a legal fee unreasonable. The opinion argues that these other positions fail to recognize the value of AI-related expertise and the benefits clients still receive. It emphasizes that lawyers should not be forced to give up the advantages of increased efficiency — as long as the end result is of high quality and the client is fully informed.
This divergence highlights a broader debate: Should legal fees reflect time, or should they reflect value, results, and professional skill — regardless of how the work gets done? The Virginia State Bar aligns firmly with the latter, urging the profession to evolve in step with technology while maintaining transparency and client trust.
As AI tools become more capable and accessible, the legal industry is moving toward a new billing paradigm — one that prioritizes value, outcomes, and efficiency over traditional time-based models. Clients increasingly expect faster turnaround times, transparent pricing, and measurable results. At the same time, law firms are embracing technologies like ProPlaintiff, CoCounsel, and Harvey.ai to stay competitive and improve service delivery.
This shift doesn’t mean the end of professional judgment — it means that legal skill is evolving. Lawyers will need to be fluent not only in legal doctrine but also in the ethical use of AI. They must be able to:
Fee models will likely continue moving away from hourly billing, especially as clients question the relevance of time in an AI-accelerated workflow. Instead, flat fees, subscription pricing, and value-based billing may become the norm — provided lawyers remain transparent and the fees reflect genuine expertise and outcomes.
The key takeaway? AI is not a shortcut to lower costs — it’s a tool for smarter, more efficient lawyering. And ethical billing in this new landscape means recognizing both the power of technology and the ongoing value of human judgment.
Not necessarily. Faster work doesn’t mean less valuable work. If the outcome is high quality and the lawyer applies professional skill to guide and verify the AI’s output, the fee can still be reasonable under legal ethics rules.
Transparency is essential. Lawyers should inform clients when AI is used in a way that affects how work is performed or billed. Clients deserve to know how technology influences the service they’re paying for.
Free or low-cost AI tools are generally not HIPAA or SOC 2 compliant and may not offer the data security required for handling confidential client information. Lawyers should avoid using them for sensitive matters unless proper safeguards are in place.
Clearly and upfront. Lawyers should communicate that their fees reflect their expertise, oversight, and the final result — not just the number of hours worked. This helps set expectations and maintain trust.
Over time, increased efficiency may lead to more affordable legal options for some clients. But ethics rules don’t require lawyers to pass all cost savings directly to clients, especially when professional judgment and risk management remain central to the service.
Check out other Legal AI Posts