The Complete Guide to Using AI as a Legal Professional in Philadelphia in 2025

Philadelphia lawyers should care about AI in 2025 because it's no longer hypothetical: the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar issued a Joint Formal Opinion (2024‑200) laying out ethical obligations - from Rule 1.1 competence to duties of confidentiality and candor - when using generative tools that now draft briefs and can hallucinate.

Courts and state bars are moving toward disclosure and verification requirements, while industry research shows AI can free nearly 240 hours per year for lawyers but only with careful oversight.

Practical upskilling matters: consider local programs like the Penn Carey Law executive program below for CLE and policy grounding and Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work bootcamp registration to build hands‑on prompt and tool skills so firms can use AI to augment judgment, safeguard client data, and avoid the sanctions that follow unchecked reliance on generative outputs.

Artificial Intelligence, Industry, and the Law executive program (Penn Carey Law)

Understanding AI basics starts with a clear distinction: traditional AI tools (search, e‑discovery) help automate tasks, while generative AI creates new text and can draft pleadings or synthesize facts - sometimes inventing them, a problem courts have already seen when briefs cited non‑existent cases; Pennsylvania lawyers should therefore treat generative outputs as a first draft that requires independent verification.

The Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 from the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bars underscores fundamental duties - competence (RPC 1.1), confidentiality (RPC 1.6), communication (RPC 1.4), candor (RPC 3.3), and supervisory responsibilities (RPC 5.1/5.3) - and warns that proficiency includes knowing AI's limits and verifying citations, managing bias, and obtaining informed client consent where data is exposed; see the Opinion for practical guidance.

National guidance such as the ABA's Formal Opinion 512 echoes these points and frames generative tools as ethically fraught but useful when paired with lawyer judgment.

Start by learning what your chosen tool does with input data, require verification steps in workflows, and document disclosures or billing practices so AI augments rather than replaces professional judgment.

For quick reference, review the Joint Formal Opinion and ABA analysis linked below.

“If the AI is an open-based system, meaning it goes out to the internet, the information goes out to whoever owns that open-based system. When we input data into AI we don't know where the data goes, we don't know where it's stored, we don't know if it's secured or if it's stolen down the line.”

What's “best” for a Philadelphia practice depends on the job: for transactional teams that want to draft and redline without leaving Microsoft Word, Spellbook is frequently recommended - its Word add‑in, clause library and benchmarking tools speed contract drafting and in‑document review and are built to slot into existing workflows (Spellbook legal AI tools and Word add-in); for heavy legal research and research‑backed drafting, platforms like Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel tie AI to trusted databases and practice workflows and help mitigate jurisdictional gaps in output quality (Thomson Reuters: AI transforming the legal profession and CoCounsel integration).

Free, general LLMs such as ChatGPT remain useful for brainstorming and plain‑language summaries but require careful verification for Pennsylvania‑specific law.

Choose tools by matching functionality (Word integration, redlining, research depth), security and data handling, and the firm's billing and supervision model - Thomson Reuters' research shows widespread time savings (roughly 240 hours per lawyer/year in some use cases) but stresses due diligence and human oversight before relying on any generative output.

“The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor,' not as a producer of documents … breadth of experience is where a lawyer's true value lies and that will remain valuable.”

Philadelphia lawyers need to think of AI regulation in 2025 as a fast‑shifting mosaic: there's still no single federal AI statute, the White House has pushed a pro‑innovation “AI Action Plan” and an executive order in January 2025 reshaped federal priorities toward accelerating adoption, and federal agencies (SEC, FTC, FCC and others) are already issuing rules and enforcement actions that affect everyday practice - from deceptive AI outputs to data and securities risks (see Skadden's summary of the White House plan).

At the same time, states are moving aggressively and unevenly: the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that every state introduced AI bills in 2025 and roughly 38 states enacted about 100 measures, producing a patchwork of obligations that can differ radically across borders (for a state‑by‑state snapshot, see the NCSL 2025 legislation summary).

Practical takeaway for Philadelphia firms: monitor federal agency guidance and state developments, track high‑risk statutes like Colorado's risk‑based approach as a bellwether, and bake governance into workflows - think human‑in‑the‑loop checks, transparency in client communications, and clear data‑handling rules - because regulatory exposure can come as quickly as a bad citation in a brief.

For a practitioner's roadmap to the evolving landscape, Thomson Reuters' guide to navigating AI laws and regulations is a helpful digest of federal, state and international trends to follow closely.

Short answer: it isn't per se illegal for Philadelphia lawyers to use AI, but ethical rules make unguarded use risky - Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 from the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bars frames AI as a tool that can augment practice only when lawyers meet longstanding duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, communication and supervision (RPCs 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 1.4, 5.1/5.3, among others); the Opinion responds to real world incidents where briefs cited false or unreliable material and stresses verification, disclosure, and reasonable safeguards (read the Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 on the Philadelphia Bar Association website: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 from the Philadelphia Bar Association).

The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 echoes the need for “technological competence” and warns that outputs from generative systems require scrutiny - including informed client consent before sending confidential facts into a model, clear billing disclosure if AI changes cost or efficiency, and firm policies to supervise nonlawyer users of tools (see the ABA Formal Opinion 512 analysis: ABA Formal Opinion 512 on Lawyers' Use of AI).

Ethics opinions from the Pennsylvania Bar are advisory rather than binding, but they carry persuasive weight with courts and regulators, so practical steps matter: treat AI drafts as first drafts only, verify every citation, document informed‑consent conversations, and adopt written firm rules for permitted tools and data handling to avoid the very real risk that one stray hallucinated citation will undermine a case and a reputation.

For quick reference, review the Joint Formal Opinion, the Pennsylvania Bar Association ethics opinions portal, and ABA Formal Opinion 512: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 from the Philadelphia Bar Association, Pennsylvania Bar Association ethics opinions portal, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 on AI and the Practice of Law.

"an appropriate degree of independent verification or review of [the] output,"

Risk management in Philadelphia courts now starts with a hard look at confidentiality and candor: Rule 1.6 requires

reasonable efforts

to prevent inadvertent disclosure of client information, and Rule 3.3 forbids knowingly making or leaving uncorrected false statements to a tribunal - a combination that makes fabricated or

hallucinated

citations uniquely perilous for AI‑assisted drafting.

Practical steps matter: inventory and classify sensitive client data, narrow “need‑to‑know” access, use NDAs and vendor agreements, and harden systems with encryption and multi‑factor authentication as part of written firm policies and staff training (see concrete safeguard recommendations in the strategies for safeguarding confidential business information).

Local resources can help translate ethics into action - the Pennsylvania Bar's malpractice avoidance and ethics programs offer CLE and practice guidance, and Philadelphia's Law Department maintains a HIPAA & Privacy Law Unit for municipal practitioners wrestling with privacy rules and vendor risk.

Treat generative outputs as provisional drafts, document your verification and disclosure decisions, and bake supervision, billing transparency, and incident response into workflows so that one errant citation doesn't cost a case or a career; for more on implementation and local support, review the PBA risk‑management materials and the City of Philadelphia's privacy practice group.

Begin small, iterate, and build policy as you go: start with a low‑stakes sandbox or a one‑day experiment (

AI Saturdays

) so attorneys can try prompts on mock matters rather than client files, mirroring Blank Rome's Innovation Lab approach that piloted four tools and enrolled 250 lawyers to surface real workflow issues and training gaps (Blank Rome driving AI adoption pilot lessons); next, lock down governance based on the Philadelphia Bar's Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 - document competence requirements, confidentiality practices, citation verification steps, and when to obtain client consent (Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 on AI use).

Pair that with operational checklists used for client intake - conflict checks, engagement/consent language, secure portal setup and explicit data‑handling disclosure (aim to complete initial onboarding tasks within the 24–48 hour window recommended for first impressions) to keep processes consistent and defensible (Law firm client onboarding checklist for secure intake).

Require human‑in‑the‑loop verification of every AI draft, negotiate vendor NDAs, track pilot metrics, and scale tools only after training, written policies, and documented supervision prevent the one hallucinated citation that can undo a case and a reputation.

Philadelphia lawyers who want practical, career-ready AI skills in 2025 can choose from a tight ecosystem of local options: the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School's live Executive Education “Artificial Intelligence, Industry, and the Law” program promises deep regulation-to-practice grounding (tentative 2025 dates), an opening reception and closing lunch, and roughly 20.0 CLE credits (18.0 Substantive, 2.0 Ethics) for attendees - fees list at $3,950 for private‑sector professionals and $3,450 for government/nonprofit participants (Penn Carey Law Executive Education - Artificial Intelligence, Industry, and the Law program); for semester‑style study, Penn also offers a Spring 2025 seminar, “Artificial Intelligence, Accountability, and the Law” (LAW 932‑002) meeting Mondays in Tanenbaum Hall that blends classroom discussion with a substantive paper.

For accessible, hands‑on upskilling and stackable credentials, Temple University's Office of Non‑Credit and Continuing Education runs an AI Certificate (three courses - Introduction to ChatGPT, Intermediate AI, and AI Planning and Strategies) bundled at $495 and a one‑day “Generative AI: Practical Applications for Law School Pedagogy” conference at Temple's Beasley School of Law on March 28, 2025 - ideal for skill drills and pedagogy‑focused sessions (Temple University AI Certificate and courses - Non‑Credit Continuing Education).

Pair these structured programs with short pilots or firm workshops to convert classroom learning into supervised, documented practice that avoids the one hallucinated citation that can change a case - and a career.

Billing and client communication about AI in Philadelphia practice should be deliberate, transparent, and tied to the ethics rules that already govern the profession: Pennsylvania's Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 requires lawyers to explain how AI will be used and to disclose any AI‑related expenses, and national guidance (ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state opinions summarized in the 50‑state survey) pushes the same practical point - treat AI as a tool that can save time but not a reason to obscure costs or outcomes.

Practical steps that fit local guidance: add clear AI language to engagement letters (what tools may be used, limits on confidentiality, and whether client data will be inputted), itemize and justify any third‑party AI fees, and agree in advance how time savings will affect hourly versus alternative fees so clients aren't surprised if a routine task now takes minutes instead of hours.

When confidential client material must be entered into a model, obtain informed consent and document security assurances; always verify AI‑drafted work before submission to a tribunal, because one hallucinated citation can sink a brief and a reputation.

For checklists and client‑communication templates, see the Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 and an Esquire Deposition Solutions article on litigators' disclosure and informed‑consent expectations regarding AI use for practical guidance and templates.

“a lawyer must ‘reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished.'”

Philadelphia legal professionals ready to move from caution to confident action should make three practical moves now: get leadership buy‑in and a clear strategy (the 2025 Thomson Reuters research shows firms with strategy see disproportionate ROI and that AI can free roughly 240 hours per lawyer annually), start with problem‑driven pilots rather than point solutions, and invest in credentialed upskilling so teams handle tools safely and ethically; as one BigLaw leader put it, “the first step in adopting AI isn't picking the tool.

It's diagnosing the problem,” a discipline that reduces risk and drives measurable value. Pair short, supervised pilots with firm‑wide governance and human‑in‑the‑loop verification, track ROI and client communications, and lean on practical, cohort learning to scale - local and national programs can help translate policy into practice (see the Thomson Reuters analysis of AI's impact on legal work and the ADR “AI and the Future of Law” episode on leadership and jobs).

For hands‑on skills aimed at busy professionals, consider structured courses such as Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp to build prompting, tool use, and workplace application in a paced 15‑week format.

“Understanding how legal work can be improved with AI is important to ensure tools are applied where they can have a real impact, rather than just throwing tech at a problem.”