Kaufman Ops

AI settings for a small law firm in Florida

Checked against the source documents on October 26, 2026

Florida Bar Opinion 24-1 puts it on the lawyer to find out whether an AI program keeps your data, shares it, or learns from it. The settings that answer that are on the main checklist. This page says which ones Florida points at, and why.

What Florida has said

The Florida Bar Board of Governors (Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics): Opinion 24-1, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (lawyers' use of generative artificial intelligence), 2024-01-19.

  1. Confidentiality. Rule 4-1.6 applies; take reasonable precautions; confidentiality concerns may be mitigated by in-house generative AI (Confidentiality section, p.2-3).
  2. Competence. Rule 4-1.1 comment: understand benefits and risks of technology; must sufficiently understand the technology; do not charge for time developing minimal competence (p.2, p.6).
  3. Supervision. Rule 4-5.3 standards offer useful guidance: firm policies for oversight of generative AI, review its work product, duties extend to third-party providers (Oversight section, p.3-4).
  4. Fees. May charge actual cost of generative AI if client informed, preferably in writing; may not prorate periodic subscription charges; no double billing or inflated time; consider flat or contingent fees; no charge for learning the tool (Legal Fees and Costs, p.5-6).
  5. Disclosure. Client: informed consent recommended before third-party disclosure; chatbots must disclose they are AI, not a lawyer (p.6). Court: not addressed beyond candor and sanctions references.
  6. Verification. Lawyer must verify accuracy and sufficiency of all research performed by generative AI; failure implicates Rules 4-1.1, 4-3.1, 4-3.3, 4-4.1 and court sanctions (Oversight section, p.3).

The line about the tool itself. Lawyer must research the program's policies on data retention, data sharing and self-learning; per Opinion 12-3 factors, ensure enforceable provider confidentiality obligation and breach notice, investigate reputation, security and liability limits, and determine whether provider retains submitted information or asserts proprietary rights (p.1 headnote, p.2-3 bullets). (Opinion 24-1, p.1 headnote summary and Confidentiality section bullets, p.2-3)

One line from it: "knowledge of whether the program is self-learning" (Opinion 24-1, Confidentiality section, p.2).

The settings that answer it

  1. Use the business plan, not a personal one. On Claude Pro, Claude Max and ChatGPT Plus, training on chats is each user's own setting. On Claude Team, ChatGPT Business and Microsoft 365 Copilot with a work sign-in, business data is not used for training by default. On the checklist
  2. Turn off the training and feedback exceptions an admin can still turn off (Claude feedback, ChatGPT personal accounts that are still in use). On the checklist
  3. Set retention on purpose instead of taking the default. On the checklist
  4. Turn on single sign-on so a lawyer who leaves loses access the same day. On the checklist
  5. Decide on connectors, apps and agents before staff add them. On the checklist
  6. Pick a rule on memory, and teach temporary or incognito chats for one-off matter questions. On the checklist
  7. Put the vendor's written terms on training, retention, subprocessors and breach notice in the file. On the checklist
  8. Write the one-page staff instruction and a note for each new hire. On the checklist
  9. Keep a verification step before anything is filed. That is a procedure, not a setting, and no vendor sells it. On the checklist
  10. Decide what the engagement letter says about AI use and billing. That is yours to write; I only flag that the opinion raises it. On the checklist

Rules around it

Technology competence: Yes. Rule 4-1.1 Comment (Maintaining competence), technology language approved 2016-09-29 in SC16-574 effective 2017-01-01;

Technology CLE: At least 3 of 30 credit hours every 3 years must be approved technology courses, Rule 6-10.3(b) (text as of 2026-10-22; originally 3 of 33 hours when adopted in SC16-574, effective 2017-01-01). (rule)

Court rule on AI in filings: SC2026-0673 (Rule 2.515(d)(2)) and AOSC26-12, 2026-05-28, effective 2026-06-15. What it asks of the signer: certify.

In motion: Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee work on a statutory definition of generative AI and deepfakes, referred by the Special Committee on AI Tools and Resources; full committee expected to finalize at its November 2025 meeting per Florida Bar News 2025-08-15; outcome not confirmed this session. 2025-11 source

What this page is not

This is a tech settings page, not legal advice. The state document above is the ethics half and it is yours to read and decide on. I am not a lawyer. I link the source so you can check me.

Send me one screenshot

Crop out client names, send me a screenshot of your Claude, ChatGPT or Microsoft 365 admin settings page, and I'll write back what I'd change. Free. I never need a login.

If you want this kept current for your firm, that is the monthly desk: I watch these settings as the vendors change them and as your state changes its guidance, answer staff questions in writing, usually within one business day, and write up setup notes for each new hire. $500 a month, cancel any month.

Email [email protected]

Who wrote this

Nick Kaufman

I'm Nick Kaufman. I've spent six years in customer-facing technical support for SaaS, payments and CRM software, including three years at Tier 2 on a CRM built for financial advisors, whose firms work under SEC and FINRA rules. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice. I set up software so it does what the people responsible for it decided it should do.

Other states: the full list.