FAQs on ChatGPT for Solo and Small Law Firms
                     FAQs on ChatGPT for Solo and Small Law Firms
In the three months since ChatGPT’s November 30, 2022 release, 
inaccuracies about the product have been swirling throughout the solo 
and small law firm community. Common misconceptions include the 
mistaken belief that ChatGPT scrapes web content, and that OpenAI, 
ChatGPT’s parent owns all copyright to user input and resulting output. 
Many of these myths arise from reliance on outdated material as the 
tech is changing so quickly that a month old article about ChatGPT may 
already be stale. And most lawyers are often too busy to poke around for 
the most up-to-date information. In the hopes of setting the record 
straight, here is a series of FAQs on ChatGPT for solo and small law firms 
that address some of solo and small firm lawyers’ most common 
questions about the technology.
AQ: Will I be liable for plagiarism or copyright infringement by using 
ChatGPT since it scrapes content from other websites and public 
documents? This question reflects a profound misunderstanding of 
how ChatGPT works. ChatGPT is known as a large language model 
tool which means that it is trained and powered by mountains of data 
and computing techniques to make predictions to string words 
together in a meaningful way. Because ChatGPT does not scrape or 
copy content but instead relies on multiple sources, the resulting 
output is unlikely to carbon-copy any single existing work. As such, a 
copyright infringement on a prior work would most likely not occur 
and if asserted, would be extremely difficult to prove. For lawyers 
seeking more assurance against infringement, there are a several 
solutions. First, you could run your ChatGPT results through a web 
search engine or plagiarism detector to see whether it is dangerously 
similar to prior works. Second, instead of relying on a “cut and paste” 
of ChatGPT output, put your own spin on it to make it even more 
original thereby helping to insulate you from copyright infringement 
claims
FAQ: Can I prevent others from copying ChatGPT output that I use for my 
blog posts or marketing content? That is a topic still in flux. The U.S. 
Copyright Office recently reaffirmed a longstanding policy that “to qualify as 
a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being” and that 
it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical 
process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input 
or intervention from a human author.” That means that an article generated 
by a generalized ChatGPT prompt of “draft an article about five things not to 
do during a traffic stop” probably wouldn’t qualify for copyright protection. 
But, the new Guidance acknowledges that “the Office will consider whether 
the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or an 
author’s ‘own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible 
form.’”2 The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the 
AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. Under this 
emerging case-by-case inquiry, output produced by a cleverly worded 
prompt, or series of iterative prompts, could theoretically qualify for 
coverage (though of course, you would need to show proof of the creative 
process). If you want to be assured of copyright protection, it is best to 
avoid cutting and pasting ChatGPT content and instead, adding your own 
personal spin to any ChatGPT output
FAQ: Do ChatGPT’s terms of service assert copyright in all output and forbid users from referencing ChatGPT 
as a source? ChatGPT use is governed by the terms of service for OpenAI, the company that developed 
ChatGPT. An older version of OpenAI’s terms of service included more restrictive provisions, including a 
claim of copyright entitlement to the output. The updated terms assign any copyrights that OpenAI may 
have to the user. The new terms also warn users that non-API content provided can be used to train 
ChatGPT and allows for an opt-out. Keep in mind that terms of service for new products are always in flux or 
subject to change, so always check with the source (i.e., the actual terms) to make sure you’re dealing with 
the current version. FAQ: Does using ChatGPT violate client confidentiality? As noted above, OpenAI does 
not use API content for training ChatGPT and allows an opt-out for non-API content. This means that wide 
circulation of your input won’t be incorporated into future output. Even so, it is prudent to treat ChatGPT as 
you would when seeking advice on a listserv or in a Facebook group. Generally speaking, an online inquiry 
about a case that doesn’t reveal any details about a client (such as asking about remedies for a parent who 
violates terms of a custody agreement by taking the child out of state) doesn’t breach attorney-client 
privilege. By contrast, posting your client’s social security number in an online forum and asking if anyone 
can run a credit check is a hard no. In short, if there are details that you’re forbidden from posting online or 
sharing outside of the attorneyclient relationship, don’t input them into ChatGPT. As with all new 
technology, common sense still applies
FAQ: Can I use the results of ChatGPT and court filings? You can, but if you don’t exercise some due 
diligence, you put yourself at risk. While a strong starting point for research and issue-spotting, ChatGPT 
results may not always be accurate enough to plop right into a brief without doing some follow up research. 
But realize, this isn’t a flaw that is unique to ChatGPT. After all, you wouldn’t string cite case annotations 
from the most reputable legal treatise without first reading the cases, so why would you simply cut and 
paste ChatGPT output into a legal brief or memo? If there is one thing that law school actually did teach us, 
it’s that it is never a sound practice to use any secondary legal authority, no matter the source, without 
additional research or review
FAQ: Do ethics rules foreclose use of ChatGPT? No. In fact, ethics provide some rough 
guidance on responsible use of new technologies like ChatGPT. Under ABA Model Rule 1.1 
and in the states that have adopted the Rule, lawyers have an ethical obligation to stay 
abreast of the risks and benefits of emerging technology. That means that lawyers should 
take proactive steps to learn about new tools like ChatGPT that can help clients. ABA Ethics 
Opinion 08-451 also allows lawyers to outsource work to non-lawyers (including 
automated or tech solutions) provided that they adequately supervise the work and 
protect confidential information. As a solo or small firm practitioner, consider the 
emergence and evolution of ChatGPT as an opportunity to embrace technology in your 
practice and better serve your clients.
Attorneys First Insurance
36310 US 19 N.
Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
727-799-4321
727-559-2999
[email protected] &
[email protected]
https://attorneysfirst.com/