The case, explained

Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence: New Boundaries Between Innovation and Ethics

5 min read · Updated October 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

Recent regulatory evolution marks a turning point for the legal profession, consolidating the application of professional representative body Guidelines on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). While previous interventions focused on economic aspects, current developments shift the focus to the professional's disciplinary responsibility. This article examines how the integration of generative systems in legal practice must harmonize with the pillars of the Code of Conduct, preventing technological efficiency from compromising client rights. Through the narrative of our twin case, we will see how a lack of human supervision can turn a productivity tool into a deontological violation.

Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence: New Boundaries Between Innovation and Ethics

In brief

This article analyzes professional Guidelines on AI, focusing on confidentiality, supervision, and transparency obligations. It examines disciplinary liability related to generative AI, referencing the human-in-the-loop principle and illustrating the risks of sanctions for lawyers who uncritically delegate the drafting of legal documents or the management of sensitive data to machines.

  1. The fact

    The matter stems from the publication of Guidelines for the use of AI by professionals, approved by the national representative body. According to reports by specialized press, the document is not a mere technical recommendation but an official interpretative parameter for disciplinary bodies. The rules define the scope within which a lawyer may use algorithms. Press reports have highlighted how the use of open AI systems for summarizing case files has led to breaches of professional secrecy, necessitating regulation to prevent the input of confidential data into public databases used for model training.

  2. The legal framework

    The regulatory focus is based on the Professional Code of Conduct.

    1. The duty of professional secrecy, which is breached if the lawyer uploads client data to unprotected AI platforms.
    2. The duty of diligence, specifying that software errors (hallucinations) fall entirely on the professional who failed to exercise human control.
    3. The obligation of transparency, requiring the lawyer to inform the client if AI use significantly impacts the defense strategy.
    4. Personal data protection regulations (GDPR), which mandate data protection from the design stage of the legal strategy.

  3. What case law says

    The high courts have long clarified that professionals are responsible for the actions of their assistants, including technological ones. The relationship between professional and client is characterized by personal trust, a principle that prevents the total delegation of intellectual activity to third parties or machines. The trend in international courts also confirms that producing documents with non-existent case law citations generated by AI constitutes gross negligence, which is not excused by reliance on the software.

  5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

    To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

    Try edit.legal AI

  8. What it teaches professionals

    1. Use exclusively protected versions of AI systems, verifying that the data entered is not used for training public models.
    2. Rigorously apply the human-in-the-loop protocol, re-reading every line and verifying every citation produced by the algorithm.
    3. Update the data processing notice and the professional mandate, specifying the potential use of AI tools.

References: Art. 12 Codice Deontologico ForenseArt. 13 Codice Deontologico ForenseArt. 27 Codice Deontologico ForenseRegolamento UE 2016/679 (GDPR)

Related cases

Same caseLawyer Specializations: Regulation No. 3 of June 21, 2024Same caseThe case explained: The reform of the legal profession and the Nordio DecreeSame caseRevision of Forensic Parameters: The New Frontier between ADR and AI
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMContent drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

Frequently asked questions

Can I enter a client's name into a public AI system to draft a legal document?

No, according to professional guidelines and privacy regulations, entering identifying data into public AI violates professional secrecy, unless using a platform with certified confidentiality guarantees.

What do I risk if AI invents a judgment and I file it?

The professional is liable for gross negligence and may face disciplinary sanctions in addition to heavy procedural consequences for aggravated liability.

Do I always have to inform the client if I use artificial intelligence?

Yes, the duty of information and transparency requires that the client be aware of technologies impacting data processing or the defense strategy.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free