Built on the rules that govern you.
The AI Governance Phase 0™ Assessment is the only AI governance application in existence built entirely on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and ABA Formal Opinion 512. This page maps — line by line — what Opinion 512 requires of your firm and how Phase 0 produces the evidence to prove it.
Opinion 512 establishes the ethical floor for every U.S. law firm using generative AI. Defensible AI™ is the framework that operationalizes it — and Phase 0 is the patent-pending diagnostic that proves your firm is on it.
Opinion 512 recognizes three lawful methods of satisfying the technology-competence duty. Phase 0 supports all three.
Under Model Rule 1.1 and Comment [8], a lawyer's duty of competence extends to understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Opinion 512 affirms three permitted ways an attorney may discharge that duty when AI is in use. Methods 01 and 02 are firm-driven; Method 03 is where KeaneAdvisors.AI engages — under a Statement of Work that defines exactly what we deliver and what the firm retains.
— ABA Formal Op. 512
The firm subscribes to the Phase 0 Assessment app and self-administers the diagnostic. Receives the full Defensibility Score, technology inventory, and compliant-alternative recommendations. The firm builds and executes its own remediation program with no outside involvement.
— ABA Formal Op. 512
The firm completes Phase 0 in association with another attorney. This method remains substantively DIY — the responsible firm and its associated counsel must build the program themselves. Few practicing attorneys hold demonstrable AI governance expertise, which is the gap Phase 0 was built to close and the reason Method 03 exists.
— ABA Formal Op. 512
The firm engages KeaneAdvisors.AI under a Statement of Work that defines exactly what we deliver and what the firm retains. Scope is fully customizable to the firm's internal capacity, budget, education and training needs, and the demonstrable expertise of the parties involved — from targeted advisory on specific Phase 0 findings to full program design, stack remediation, training, and ongoing governance.
Every Opinion 512 obligation is met with a specific, documented Phase 0 output.
Opinion 512 does not invent new rules. It applies existing Model Rules to generative AI. Phase 0 was engineered to produce — as a default output — the documentary evidence each rule contemplates.
| What Opinion 512 Requires | What Phase 0 Produces |
|---|---|
| A reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools the firm uses (Rule 1.1). | Technology Governance Defensibility Score — a weighted, quantitative measure that the analysis has been performed and documented. |
| One of three permitted methods of discharging the competence duty: self-study, associating with competent counsel, or consulting an expert. | Phase 0 supports all three methods — firms may self-administer (Method 01), complete it in association with another attorney (Method 02), or engage KeaneAdvisors.AI under a Statement of Work (Method 03). |
| An ongoing duty: competence is “not a static undertaking” given the fast-paced evolution of GAI tools. | Quarterly re-assessment cadence and ongoing governance retainer, with re-issued Defensibility Score on each cycle. |
| Supervisory lawyers must establish policies and supervise both lawyers and non-lawyers — including third-party vendors (Rules 5.1 / 5.3). | Professional Responsibility Defensibility Score — directly measures Rule 5.1 / 5.3 posture, including third-party AI vendor supervision. |
| Protection of confidential client information when using AI tools (Rule 1.6). | IT Governance Defensibility Score plus per-tool confidentiality and data-handling compliance ratings on the full AI stack inventory. |
| An “appropriate degree of independent verification or review” of AI output, scaled to task and tool. | Verification protocols built into the governance roadmap, with task-tiered review standards aligned to Opinion 512's guidance. |
| Reasonable fees and proper handling of AI-related costs (Rule 1.5). | Fee and billing governance review — assessment of AI cost allocation, disclosure practices, and overhead vs. pass-through treatment. |
Find out where your firm stands. Before someone else does.
Phase 0 is the non-waivable starting point for any Defensible AI™ engagement. Schedule a no-obligation consultation to scope the Statement of Work that fits your firm.
Important Notice. This document is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. KeaneAdvisors.AI is an AI governance advisory firm; it is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. The summaries of ABA Formal Opinion 512 contained on this page reflect KeaneAdvisors.AI's reading of the opinion as it applies to AI governance program design and should not be relied upon as a substitute for review of the full opinion text or consultation with qualified ethics counsel.
Engagement with KeaneAdvisors.AI does not transfer or discharge any attorney's or law firm's professional responsibility under the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The responsible attorney remains the responsible attorney. Defensible AI™, AI Governance Phase 0™, and the three-pillar Defensibility Score methodology are trademarks and patent-pending methodologies of KeaneAdvisors.AI, a division of Telcloud, LLC.