Short answer: Oregon Formal Opinion 2025-205 says lawyers who want to use clients' information in an 'open' AI model 'must obtain their clients' informed consent.' Without consent, anonymization must be 'complete and effective, and even so, the client's informed consent may still be required.'
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
The opinion distinguishes 'open' models, which learn from inputs, from 'closed' ones. 'If lawyers would like to use their clients' information in an open model, lawyers must obtain their clients' informed consent' (Oregon Formal Op. 2025-205).
What's different in Oregon
Oregon speaks directly to anonymization: lawyers 'must ensure that the anonymization or redaction is complete and effective, and even so, the client's informed consent may still be required.' It also says consent requires describing risks, which 'may include disclosure and the possible loss of confidentiality or valuable intellectual property rights.'
What it implies for licensing
A buyer's de-identification doesn't settle the question in Oregon. The opinion suggests that even well-anonymized client material may need informed consent.
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 Oregon 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
- Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205, Artificial Intelligence Toolsosbar.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.