7 www.loubar.org September 2026 (Continued from previous page) Your best choice is to proceed with caution. Sure, there is a chance you’ll never need us. But why take that chance? Lawyers Mutual is dedicated to Kentucky lawyers and makes your work our priority. Call (502) 568-6100 or visit LMICK.com for more information on how you can cover and protect your practice. We want you to focus on what matters. litigant used AI specifically as a functional part of their drafting process and the re- sulting work product was protected from discovery. Additionally, the “role” of the AI itself was a major factor. In Warner, AI-as- sisted drafting was viewed as protected work product because the court determined that AI is a tool, which included the plaintiff’s internal analysis and mental impression. However, in Heppner, Judge Rakoff held that using AI was equivalent to disclosure to a third party and thus destroyed privilege, due to the platform’s privacy policy and third-party terms of service. These cases demonstrate the possibilities of how a client’s AI usage might waive privilege. As a result, there may be major shifts in discovery as “AI usage” and chat histories become standard discovery requests. This leaves attorneys with the battle of attempt- ing to develop trust with their clients, so the client does not accidentally waive privilege by consulting AI. Attorneys will also have to be prepared to explain to prospective clients why AI may not be correct on various legal topics, such as hallucinated case law or AI applying law from another jurisdiction which is not binding on the present case. To mitigate these risks proactively, law firms should integrate practical AI safeguards directly into client intake: • Updated Intake Forms: Question prospective clients early: “Have you inputted any facts, documents or ques- tions regarding this legal matter into an AI chatbot?” • Privilege Counseling: Have clear intake discussions explaining that entering confidential facts into public AI tools may destroy attorney-client privilege. • Constructive Consultation: Instead of dismissing client-provided AI research outright, use those moments to explain specifically why the AI’s legal analysis fails under Kentucky law, reinforcing the lawyer’s strategic value. Maintaining Ethical Duty: Professional Duty Meets Generative Tech Many individuals who are part of Gen Z are against the use of generative AI due to its negative impacts. While older generations tend to see the only cost of AI as energy, Gen Z has homed in on the impacts generative AI has had on the environment from mas- sive data centers to water usage. Additional voiced concerns with the use of AI include erosion of critical thinking, data privacy, elimination of jobs and impact on marginal- ized communities. This creates a unique tension for associates entering the profession: while many young lawyers harbor personal, environmental or ethical hesitations about AI, their ethical obligations leave little room for total avoid- ance. Balancing personal convictions with professional duties is becoming a defining feature of early career practice as bar as- sociations begin treating AI literacy not as a novel skill, but as an ethical requirement. The Kentucky Bar Association has spe- cifically released an ethics opinion stating that attorneys have an ethical duty to keep abreast of the use of AI in the practice of law. The Kentucky Bar Association identifies several suggested benefits of AI for lawyers, including streamlining research, reviewing large volumes of documents, predicting case outcomes and reducing legal expenses to the client due to accelerated research and docu- ment preparation. KBA E-457. Most notably, the Kentucky Bar Associa- tion states: There are many AI resources now avail- able to the lawyer, and there is much discussion about what AI resources are on the horizon, therefore as AI tools become more refined, and their use in the legal profession becomes more wide- spread, lawyers need to be aware that not using an available AI tool may constitute a failure to meet the lawyer’s duty of attaining and maintaining competence under Rule 1.1. KBA E-457 This ethical duty connects directly to several fundamental Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court: • Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1) (Com- petence): Maintaining legal competence now requires attorneys to understand the benefits and risks associated with relevant legal technologies. • Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.6) (Confi- dentiality): Attorneys must ensure cli- ent data is protected from unauthorized disclosure, ensuring client facts are not fed into public AI models that store or reuse data. • Supreme Court Rule 3.130(5.3) (Re- sponsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance): AI tools must be super- vised much like non-lawyer personnel, meaning attorneys bear ultimate ethi- cal responsibility for verifying all case citations and legal claims before filing. Practical Takeaways for Kentucky Partners and Associates As the legal profession continues to develop due to AI, both firm leadership and associ- ates must take an active role in keeping pace with these developments. For associates: View AI as a tool, not as a surrogate for legal work. While AI can as- semble facts into narrative or draft summa- ries, an associate’s value lies in their ability to critically analyze the case, recognize the subtle nuance that changes a case, and offer the human empathy that clients seek. As- sociates should master prompt structure, rigorously verify every primary source and embrace their role as critical editor and strategist. For partners: Evaluate delegation and mentorship within your firm. With the rise of AI’s ability to handle traditional associate tasks, partners face the hard balancing act between current business benefits and as- sociate development. Partners must consider how to increase efficiencies by streamlining services when possible, but they also have a duty to ensure the future of their firm and the legal field, by helping to develop an as- sociate’s skills. Partners may need to work with associates to learn how to best take an active role in learning how to use AI as a tool, instead of utter reliance. Partners should implement firm-wide AI policies, rethink billable evaluation metrics and actively include associates in strategic case reviews. Conclusion AI will never truly replace the associate, but it has begun to redefine the role and will continue to do so. While it may seem like a fight between AI and associates, AI is a tool that can be used for the advancement of an associate’s career, if both associates and partners take the time to understand the influence AI is having on the modern associate. The modern associate must step into the role of editor, strategist and trusted attorney earlier in their career. By balancing technological competence under KBA E-457 and Supreme Court Rules with the irreplace- able human judgment of legal practice, as- sociates can ensure that AI remains a tool rather than a substitute. Tess Hardesty is an intellectual property and commercial litigation associate at Gray Ice Hig- don. She earned her B.S. in Biology from Old Dominion University and her J.D. from West Virginia University Col- lege of Law. Tess currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Louisville Bar Asso- ciation’s Young Lawyers Section. n Please join us in praying for all attorneys, judges, public officials, law students, and their families and staff, regardless of religious and spiritual affiliation. CATHEDRAL OF THE ASSUMPTION 433 South Fifth Street, Louisville Wednesday, September 30, 2026 | 12:15 p.m. Archbishop Shelton J. Fabre of Louisville will preside over the Mass. Father Thomas J. Reitmeyer of Austin, who serves as the diocesan vicar general and a judge in the Diocese of Austin Tribunal will preach the homily. The Red Mass is a Catholic liturgy, but a warm invitation is exended to all of those working in the legal profession
