Abstract

The duty of candor — the obligation of attorneys to be truthful in their representations to courts, clients, and opposing parties — is among the most foundational principles of legal ethics. Model Rules 3.3 and 4.1 impose affirmative obligations of truthfulness that have been interpreted and applied across a century of professional responsibility doctrine. The deployment of AI tools in legal practice introduces new dimensions to these obligations that existing doctrine has not fully addressed.

This paper examines how AI-generated content interacts with attorney candor obligations. We analyze three distinct candor problems created by AI deployment: the attribution problem (when AI-generated arguments are presented as attorney analysis), the accuracy problem (when AI outputs contain errors that attorneys fail to detect), and the transparency problem (when attorneys fail to disclose AI involvement in ways that would be material to courts or clients). We argue that each problem implicates candor obligations in ways that require doctrinal development beyond existing ethics opinions.

We further examine the emerging question of mandatory AI disclosure — whether attorneys have an obligation to disclose AI use to courts, clients, or opposing counsel — and analyze the growing body of court rules and bar guidance addressing this question. The paper proposes a framework for understanding when AI use triggers disclosure obligations and what those disclosures must contain to satisfy candor requirements.

Full Paper

This paper is published on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). To read the full text, download the PDF, or cite this work, please visit the SSRN abstract page:

→ Read the Full Paper on SSRN (Abstract ID: 6678078)

Published: May 2026 — Authors: Austin, Morris & Das — View all research papers