Short answer: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388 tells lawyers to find out whether a generative AI product saves what they input and whether it affects answers for users outside the firm. 'Affirmative answers to either of those questions signal a need for caution.'
On this page
Read this first
None of these opinions addresses licensing records to an AI training buyer directly. They address lawyers putting client information into generative AI tools. Their reasoning about tools that store inputs or train on them is the closest published guidance, so we summarize what each says and what it implies.
What the opinion says
Opinion 388 asks whether the product will save information the lawyer provides, and whether the lawyer's use 'will affect the answers the GAI gives to future users of the product outside of the lawyer's law firm. Affirmative answers to either of those questions signal a need for caution' (D.C. Bar Op. 388).
What's different in D.C.
Opinion 388 speaks to training directly: many products 'are specifically designed to collect and use information received from users—which may include client confidences and secrets—for the GAI's own training and for transmission to future users of the technology.' D.C. Rule 1.6 'requires lawyers not to reveal client confidences or secrets to third parties without the client's informed consent.'
What it implies for licensing
Training data is saved and shapes answers for users outside the firm by design, so both of Opinion 388's warning signs are present. D.C. firms should keep client confidences and secrets out of scope.
Program rules still apply
Mode lists minimum team sizes of 10+ employees for legal, 15+ for accounting, medical and finance, and 50+ for all other businesses, for companies based in the US, Canada, the UK or Australia with several years of records they own (Mode). micro1 asks for 30+ employees, mostly English data, and says it is prioritizing US companies (micro1).
This is general information, not legal advice. Talk to your own attorney or compliance advisor before you share or license any records.
What could your company's records be worth?
Answer 6 questions. See the published range for a company like yours and which program fits. Takes about a minute.
Frequently asked questions
Does D.C. have a rule specifically about selling firm data to AI?
Not that we found. The published guidance addresses lawyers' use of AI tools; we apply its reasoning.
Is client consent the answer?
Consent can permit disclosure, but it must be informed. Ethics counsel should decide whether consent is practical for your clients.
What about ABA guidance?
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) covers lawyers' use of generative AI tools under the Model Rules.
Sources
- D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388, Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Mattersdcbar.org
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI tools (July 2024)americanbar.org
- ABA Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Informationamericanbar.org
- Mode / BizBuyData referral pagebizbuydata.com
- micro1 company referral pagemicro1.ai
Referral-fee disclosure: we may be paid by a program if your company signs with it after using this site. General information only, not legal advice.
Compare programs
Best AI data program for a small law firm (10-29 staff)Side by side from each program's own pages. Rankings follow published rules, not referral fees.
See buyers that name law and professional-services firms, from their own pages, with sources and dates.