Short answer: New Jersey's Supreme Court preliminary AI guidelines say 'a lawyer is responsible to ensure the security of an AI system before entering any non-public client information,' applying RPC 1.6 and its duty to prevent unauthorized disclosure.
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 guidelines say
The preliminary guidelines (January 2024) quote RPC 1.6(f): a lawyer must 'make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information related to the representation of a client.' They add that 'a lawyer is responsible to ensure the security of an AI system before entering any non-public client information' (N.J. Supreme Court guidelines).
What's different in New Jersey
The guidance comes from the state Supreme Court rather than a bar committee, and it quotes New Jersey's RPC 1.6, under which a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation 'unless the client consents after consultation'.
What it implies for licensing
The guidelines focus on security before entering 'non-public client information'. A license that transfers such information to a third party for training would need client consent, so firm-owned material is the practical 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 New Jersey 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
- New Jersey Supreme Court, Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of AI by New Jersey Lawyers (Jan 2024)njcourts.gov
- 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.