Client documents, rarely. ABA Model Rule 1.6, adopted in some form in every state, bars revealing any information relating to a client's representation without informed consent, and that covers far more than privileged material. Anonymizing helps only when there is no reasonable likelihood that anyone could work out the client or the matter, which is hard to guarantee for real case files. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) requires informed client consent before client information goes into AI tools that may learn from it. Templates, precedents, checklists and research methods the firm wrote itself are the realistic scope.
- Rule 1.6 covers all information relating to the representation, not only privileged communications.
- Anonymization works only if the client and matter cannot reasonably be identified.
- Firm-authored know-how is licensable; client files generally need informed consent.
What Rule 1.6 covers
Model Rule 1.6(a) bars a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or a listed exception applies. The duty is broader than attorney-client privilege: it covers everything learned in the representation, whatever the source.
Comment 4 allows lawyers to discuss hypotheticals only when there is no reasonable likelihood that the listener could ascertain the client's identity or the situation. That is the closest the rule comes to an anonymization test, and real case files with dates, places and fact patterns rarely meet it.
What Formal Opinion 512 adds
ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in July 2024, addresses lawyers' use of generative AI. It concludes that informed client consent is needed before client information goes into a self-learning AI tool, and that general consent language in an engagement letter is not sufficient. Licensing client documents to a company that will train models on them raises the same concern more directly.
Source: ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative artificial intelligence tools (2024)
What a law firm can realistically license
| Record | Position under Rule 1.6 |
|---|---|
| Templates and precedents with client details removed | Usually licensable; check for identifying fact patterns |
| Practice checklists and research methods | Licensable; firm-authored |
| Matter-management workflows and metrics | Licensable if aggregated and de-identified |
| Pleadings and discovery from closed matters | Informed consent from each client; some are public record but still covered |
| Documents produced by other parties | Usually restricted by protective orders |
State rules and practical steps
- Check your state's version of Rule 1.6 and any state ethics opinions on AI.
- Ask whether engagement letters can include a specific AI licensing consent for future matters.
- Protective orders in litigation often bar any use of produced documents outside the case.
- Keep a record of which documents are firm-authored and which came from clients.
Next step
See also data licensing for US law firms and AI data licensing for advisers.
Origin Data Partners is independent and is not affiliated with any AI data buyer. We help owners compare buyers and find the best fit for their records. See what your data is worth.
Common questions
Is it legal for a law firm to sell anonymized documents to AI companies?
It depends on your state's version of Rule 1.6. Disclosing information relating to a representation needs informed client consent unless an exception applies. Anonymized material is only safe when there is no reasonable likelihood that the client or matter can be identified, which is difficult for full case files.
What does ABA Formal Opinion 512 say about client data and AI?
It says lawyers must get informed client consent before inputting information relating to a representation into a generative AI tool that can learn from or disclose it, and that boilerplate consent in an engagement letter is not enough.
What can a law firm license without client consent?
Material the firm created that contains no client information: templates and precedent banks with client details removed, practice checklists, research methods, matter-management workflows and training content.
Do closed matters change the analysis?
No. The duty of confidentiality continues after the representation ends. Closed files remain covered by Rule 1.6.
Sources and further reading
Origin Data Partners is independent and not affiliated with any buyer named on this page.