Kaufman Ops

AI settings for a small law firm in Washington

Checked against the source documents on October 26, 2026

WSBA Advisory Opinion 202505 says consumer AI products have features a lawyer must understand and, if needed, change. The settings that answer that are on the main checklist. This page says which ones Washington points at, and why.

What Washington has said

Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE): Advisory Opinion 202505 (also styled 2025-05), Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice, 2025.

  1. Confidentiality. Verify the tool's contractual terms protect client information; consumer tools without confidentiality assurances should not get identifiable client data; clients may restrict tools (Section II.C).
  2. Competence. Lawyers must understand how the tools they use work and stay responsible for the work product; a vendor's promise alone is not enough (Section II.A).
  3. Supervision. Train staff on appropriate AI use, evaluate vendor safeguards; an internal AI policy and regular training are best practice; purely technological assistants fall under 1.1 and 1.6 not 5.3 (Section II.F, n. 41).
  4. Fees. May bill time actually spent using AI such as prompting, never time saved; AI costs are overhead or an agreed expense under RPC 1.5 (Section II.G).
  5. Disclosure. Client disclosure depends on circumstances (Section II.D); no false statements to a tribunal; where a court rule requires AI disclosure, RPC 3.4(c) requires compliance (Section II.E, n. 39).
  6. Verification. Independently check AI-generated citations and arguments; professional judgment cannot be delegated to the tool (Sections II.A, II.B, II.E).

The line about the tool itself. Understand the contractual terms of use and keep up with updated terms; examine whether the vendor uses data for any other purpose; consumer products may have features that must be understood and if necessary modified (Sections II.A, II.C). (Advisory Opinion 202505, Section II.A (consumer-oriented products paragraph) and)

One line from it: "Competence does not mean perfection, expertise, or paranoia." (Advisory Opinion 202505, Section II.A, Duty of Competence (quoting an outside au).

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. Washington RPC 1.1, Comment [8] (benefits and risks associated with relevant technology), Washington Supreme Court Order 25700-A-1146 (June 2, 2016), effective.

In motion: WSBA to form a Technology Implementation Work Group to carry out the Legal Technology Task Force recommendations (AI competence, ethical-use frameworks, a Supreme Court-affiliated legal tech board); charter pending MEC and Board approval, no dates set 2025-11-14 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 nick@kaufmanops.com

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.