The American Bar Association’s Formal Opinion 512, “Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools,” gets some things right, but goes astray when considering alternative billing models like flat fees:
The factors set forth in Rule 1.5(a) also apply when evaluating the reasonableness of charges for GAI tools when the lawyer and client agree on a flat or contingent fee. For example, if using a GAI tool enables a lawyer to complete tasks much more quickly than without the tool, it may be unreasonable under Rule 1.5 for the lawyer to charge the same flat fee when using the GAI tool as when not using it. “A fee charged for which little or no work was performed is an unreasonable fee.” [Footnotes omitted].
It is penalizing lawyers for efficiency that is unreasonable.
I can’t explain it better than Greg Siskind, so I won’t try:
You select a car based on a lot of subjective factors, including the reputation of the manufacturer and the perceived quality of the vehicle. Drivers usually don’t care whether the car is completely handmade or built with robots. But they do tend to care about things like the buying experience, the car’s look and feel, and the reputation and trustworthiness of the manufacturer. The buyers don’t care about how much automation was used in making the car. If a manufacturer produces a great product at a much lower cost to make the product because of superior technology, buyers are happy to reward them with higher profits. We would think it absurd if the government said that a car manufacturer had to lower their prices because of the savings they achieved through robots and automation. That would be the role of a competitive market. Why is law different?
More in my LLRX.com article Artificial Intelligence, ABA Formal Opinion 512 And Access To Justice.