Bench & Bar May/June 2026

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION

MAY/JUNE 2026 BENCH & BAR MAGAZINE

IN THIS ISSUE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEW LEGAL FRONTIER

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION SINCE 1871

Insurance for Kentucky Lawyers

https://hubs.li/Q02c9-250 More Information:

Group Term Life Insurance Protection: Life insurance protects loved ones if something happens to you. Financial Stability: Prevents immediate financial hardship due to the loss of income and

Disability Income Insurance Unforeseen Risks: Accidents can occur anywhere, jeopardizing financial security. Stability Through Disability Insurance: Coverage for disabilities ensures financial stability.

Business Overhead Insurance Business Continuity: Safeguards your business during a covered disability, preventing financial strain. Overhead Expense Coverage: Covers your portion of essential business expenses.

allows family to meet financial obligations.

vol. 90 no. 3 THIS ISSUE OF THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION’S B&B-BENCH & BAR WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MONTH OF MAY. COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE EILEEN M. O’BRIEN chair , lexington PAUL ALLEY florence ELIZABETH M. BASS hendersonville , tenn . JENN L. BRINKLEY pensacola , fla . KYLE R. BUNNELL lexington FRANCES E. CATRON CADLE lexington ALLISON I. CONNELLY lexington JAMES P. DADY bellevue JOHN M. GHAELIAN lexington P. FRANKLIN HEABERLIN prestonsburg JESSICA R. C. MALLOY louisville SANDRA J. REEVES corbin JOHN SCHAAF georgetown GERALD R. TONER louisville ZACHARY M. VAN VACTOR louisville SAMUEL W. WARDLE louisville LITANY L. WEBSTER cincinnati , ohio MICHELE M. WHITTINGTON lexington

CONTENTS 2 President’s Page BY TODD V. MCMURTRY

2026 ANNUAL CONVENTION OVERVIEW

6

12 The Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law A Kentucky Ethics Perspective BY ANGELA LOGAN EDWARDS 16 Tech and Trust: Applying an IT Mindset to AI in Estate Planning and Elder Law BY SHELLY ANN KAMEI 20 What is a Reasonable Fee? The Obsolescence of Rule 1.5 in the Age of AI BY SHELDON G. GILMAN FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEW LEGAL FRONTIER

KATHRYN D. WILLIAMS louisville MARK A. WINSOR lawrenceburg

PUBLISHER JOHN D. MEYERS EDITOR EILEEN M. O’BRIEN

COLUMNS

30 Law Practice Management BY STEPHEN EMBRY

26 Effective Legal Writing

MANAGING EDITOR SHANNON H. ROBERTS DESIGN & LAYOUT JESI L. EBELHAR

BY PROFESSOR MICHEAL D. MURRAY

32 Lawyer Wellbeing BY DR. ERIC Y. DROGIN

38 University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law 34 Young Lawyers Division BY KYLE R. BUNNELL

36

Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law

THE B&B - BENCH & BAR (ISSN-1521-6497) IS PUBLISHED BI-MONTHLY BY THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, 514 WEST MAIN STREET, FRANKFORT, KY 40601-1812. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT FRANKFORT, KY AND ADDITIONAL MAILING OFFICES. ALL MANUSCRIPTS FOR PUBLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE MANAGING EDITOR. PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION WITH CREDIT. PUBLICATION OF ANY ARTICLE OR STATEMENT IS NOT TO BE DEEMED AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN BY THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, ITS BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SECTIONS, DIVISIONS, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS. ANNUAL DUES AND IS NOT LESS THAN 50% FOR THE LOWEST SUBSCRIPTION PRICE PAID BY SUBSCRIBERS. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL (502) 564-3795. POSTMASTER SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: B&B - BENCH & BAR 514 WEST MAIN STREET FRANKFORT, KY 40601-1812 SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: $20 PER YEAR. MEMBERS SUBSCRIPTION IS INCLUDED IN

40 University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law

42 BOG Minutes 46 Pro Hac Vice Reminder BAR NEWS

50 Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program 52 Continuing Legal Education 48 Kentucky Bar Foundation DEPARTMENTS

58 Who, What, When and Where

Cover and several inside graphics by ©istockphoto.com/JesiEbelhar

1

bench & bar

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

“

So long, Farewell, Good night. Auf Wiedersehen, BY TODD V. MCMURTRY

”

"S o long, farewell” is a Rogers and Hammerstein song for the 1959 musical, “The Sound of Music,” sung by the Von Trapp Family characters. As choreographed, the song has the chil dren seeming to repeatedly exit and reenter the stage. This draws out the ending, leaving the viewer wondering when the scene is finally going to end. This is what being the president of the Kentucky Bar Association can feel like, especially in a year as tumultuous as mine – when is the show going to be over? At the time of writing, I am over 10 months into a 12-month term. Practically, I have one more board of governors meeting and the annual convention. Then it is the next person up, who happens to be Matt Cook from Bowling Green. Last year, when I started this run, Rhonda Black burn was downright giddy to pass the gavel. Now, I understand why. Trying to lead an organization like the KBA, despite the high quality of the staff and full-time leaders, is not so easy. And in a year when the legislature sought to dramatically change how the bar association func tions or does not function, the time and stress piled on. Every day or week presents a new series of meetings, Zoom calls, phone calls, and emails to keep things moving. Most of the moving parts are ini tiatives that either I or a former president initiated. The staff is extremely helpful in implementing the vision of the president but keeping things on track requires a lot of time and attention. That said, I would like to review what I did that worked and what did not. I will close with a look forward to explain how things are changing.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI). I said it was going to be big and dramatic, and it has been. So, I scored this prediction as an easy A. AI is rocketing forward, and although it may not be affecting your practice just yet, it will. When an attorney with a little guidance and prompting is able to produce an excellent rough draft of nearly any legal document in minutes, those who figure out AI are going to have an advantage. If you have not started your AI transition, it is not too late. Make plans to join us at our annual convention (www.kybar.org/2026ac) to learn more about AI and its impact on our profession.

2

may/june 2026

When it comes to coverage , make sure you’re playing with a full deck.

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.

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

LEADERSHIP. I wrote about John Marshall Harlan, the Great Dissenter. A few lawyers wrote to thank me for writing about the lawyer-states man ideal. I really do think we lawyers need to think more about being leaders. When I look at our leaders, I am disappointed in most of them. What we see happening in our country is not what I would call leadership, it is partisanship. Notably, few of our leaders are lawyers, as political discourse usually denigrates lawyers. People seem to think we are the problem. I hope each one of us, in our own way, can work in our communities to change this dynamic. Steady, ethical, practical leadership from lawyers can foster change. We have a lot to offer, so I encourage you to seek out leadership opportunities in your community. I am scoring myself with an A for encouraging lawyers to get involved.

DEMOGRAPHICS. I recently spoke with Chase Dean Judith Daar. We compared notes on the steady reduc tion of the percentage of men entering the field and the changing demograph ics of new law students. Since 2015, women have increasingly outnum bered men as law school applicants. Combined with record Baby Boomer retirements, the composition of the legal profession will be nothing like it was when I started to practice in 1991. Change is as dramatic as I reported earlier this year. Dean Daar advised that nearly half of current applicants to our nation’s law schools claim some level of diversity. The legal profession is a snapshot of our country. I scored my comments on lawyer demographics as an A. Times are changing. MEANING. I shared with you the tragic story of my friend, Patrick Heringer, who was murdered in Cin cinnati last June. This article resonated with many of you. I thank each person who took the time to react to Patrick’s personal philosophy. One person, who has been practicing since 1982 advised that this was her favorite president’s page ever. I have been humbled by your responses and honored to be a part of Patrick’s legacy. I scored this president’s page as an A for its message.

THE FUTURE. The legislature's effort to sig nificantly restructure the bar association, which represents its second attempt in four years, fell heavily on my tenure. The KBA Executive Committee and I did our best to preserve the role of the board of governors as a medi ating influence between practitioners and the Supreme Court. The future structure of the bar association remains an open question, as compet ing visions of its proper role continue to be debated. Some see value in a professional association model, in which dues reflect a shared commitment to the ideals of the profes sion. Others prefer a more streamlined licensing model, in which a fee covers the cost of regulatory oversight. Both perspectives reflect sincere convictions about how best to serve lawyers and the public. The legislature will likely revisit this question in the coming session, and the KBA will continue to participate in that conversation. So, whatever I did or tried to do has not been up to the task. I give myself a D+ on securing the future of our association. I for one will continue to aspire to be a professional. THANK YOU. The Law and lawyers have been such an important part of my life. From the early days of vacuuming my father’s office to writing my final president’s page, nearly every day of my life has had some legal interaction. I am so thankful to have had this life, and I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have given me to serve our profession. I also want to thank the truly professional KBA staff. We have an extremely well-run organization that genuinely cares. It is hard to convey how diligently so many KBA staff members work to provide you with outstanding educational opportunities, networking opportunities, and professional support. They are the unsung heroes.

4 may/june 2026

TERMS EXPIRE ON THE KBA BOARD OF GOVERNORS

On June 30 of each year, terms expire for seven (7) of the fourteen (14) Bar Governors on the KBA Board of Governors. SCR 3.080 provides that notice of the expiration of the terms of the Bar Governors shall be carried in the Bench & Bar. SCR 3.080 also provides that a Board member may serve three consecutive two-year terms. Requirements for being nominated to run for the Board of Governors are contained in Section 4 of the KBA By-Laws and the requirements include filing a written petition signed by not less than twenty (20) KBA members in good standing who are residents of the candidate’s Supreme Court District. Board policy provides that “No member of the Board of Governors or Inquiry Commission shall represent an attorney in a discipline matter.” In addition, any member of the Bar who is considering seeking or plans to seek election to the Board of Governors or to a position as an Officer of the KBA will, if elected, be required to sign a limited waiver of confidentiality regarding any private discipline he or she may have received. Any such petition must be received by the KBA Executive Director at the Kentucky Bar Center in Frankfort prior to the close of business on the last business day in October. PLEASE VISIT THE KBA WEBSITE AT WWW.KYBAR.ORG/PETITION TO OBTAIN A PETITION.

THE CURRENT TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING BOARD MEMBERS WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2027:

2 ND DISTRICT STEPHANIE MCGEHEE-SHACKLETTE BOWLING GREEN 4 TH DISTRICT SHEILA P. HIESTAND LOUISVILLE 6 TH DISTRICT CATHERINE D. STAVROS FORT MITCHELL

1 ST DISTRICT MATTHEW C. TIERNEY OWENSBORO 3 RD DISTRICT SARAH HAY KNIGHT SOMERSET 5 TH DISTRICT LATOI D. MAYO LEXINGTON

7 TH DISTRICT MIRANDA D. CLICK PIKEVILLE

m

KYBARHub.org

The Knowledge Hub consists of vendor-sponsored content designed to be helpful in your organization.

5

bench & bar

KBA Half-Page Ad 2023-02-10.indd 1

2/10/23 6:07 PM

CONVENTION AWAITS! Meet us in Covington this June 11–12 for the 2026 Annual Convention.

Register now at kybar.org/2026AC.

6

may/june 2026

THURSDAY 6.11.26 1:15 – 2:15 PM Feature Andrea Canning

NEW THIS YEAR: CUSTOMIZED CLE TRACKS! • Civil Law • Estate & Elder Law • Business Law • AI Bootcamp • Three General Session Tracks AND OTHER GREAT SESSIONS YOU WON’T WANT TO MISS: • Supreme Court Rules Hearing

An award-winning journalist and correspondent for Dateline NBC, known for her in-depth reporting and compelling storytelling on high-profile criminal cases. sponsor :

FRIDAY 6.12.26

(open to all KBA members) • The Bar Examined: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Bar Associations (open to all KBA members) • File & Serve Update

Spotlight Ian McDougall A senior executive at LexisNexis and a leading voice on the future of law, innovation, and the rule of law. 10:15 – 11:15 AM

sponsor :

ON-DEMAND MAY 1 - JUNE 30, 2026 6 CLE CREDITS INCLUDING 3 ETHICS CREDITS ON-DEMAND TOPICS:

LAW

ZIEGLER & SCHNEIDER, P.S.C.

zslaw.com / (859) 426-1300

2:15 – 3:15 PM Feature Scott Turow A #1 New York Times bestselling author and former prosecutor, widely regarded as one of the most influential voices in legal fiction.

• Nonprofits and Taxes • Unclaimed Property • AI in Law Practice Management

sponsor :

7

bench & bar

2026 DISTINGUISHED AWARD RECIPIENTS Join us as we honor our distinguished award recipients during our annual banquet on June 11 th . Be sure to add the banquet dinner ticket to your registration to join the celebration.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S SPECIAL SERVICE AWARD Shawna Mitchell McKee

DISTINGUISHED JUDGE AWARD Judge Julie Reinhardt Ward Newport

DISTINGUISHED LAWYER AWARD Robert M. Hoffer Ft. Mitchell

PRESIDENT’S SPECIAL SERVICE AWARD Rep. Stephanie

JUSTICE THOMAS B. SPAIN AWARD Nichole Shelton Louisville

BRUCE K. DAVIS BAR SERVICE AWARD Stephen D. Wolnitzek Covington

DONATED LEGAL SERVICE AWARD Adam M. Russell Covington

A. Dietz Edgewood

8 may/june 2026

2026 YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION AWARDS

Be a part of the Young Lawyers Division Luncheon on June 11 th as we recognize outstanding achievements and present this year’s award recipients. Add the luncheon ticket to your registration to attend this special event.

OUTSTANDING YOUNG LAWYER AWARD Kyle R. Bunnell Lexington

NATHANIEL R. HARPER AWARD John M. Rosenberg Lexington

YOUNG LAWYER SERVICE TO

SERVICE TO YOUNG LAWYERS AWARD Susan H. Duncan Louisville

COMMUNITY AWARD Ryan G. Stevens Louisville

OUTSTANDING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Joye Beth Spinks Bowling Green

OUTSTANDING DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE Aaron M. Osborne Crestview Hills

OUTSTANDING COORDINATOR Katelyn B. Goebel Louisville

9 bench & bar

MAKE SURE YOU VISIT THESE EXHIBITORS DURING CONVENTION!

THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS & EXHIBITORS!

2 ND CHAIR LEGAL LLC 4BIS CYBER SECURITY & IT SERVICES

CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER, INC. CIVIL LEGAL AID PROGRAMS CLIO DEAN DORTON DECISIS

PLATINUM

FILEVINE GILSBAR

FEATURE & SPOTLIGHT SPEAKERS

GOODE LITIGATION SERVICES LLC KBA ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLAN KBA MEMBER BENEFITS KBA YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION KENTUCKIANA COURT REPORTERS KENTUCKY BAR FOUNDATION AND KENTUCKY IOLTA FUND KENTUCKY CASA NETWORK KENTUCKY COURT OF JUSTICE/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS KENTUCKY LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM KY ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION LAWYERS MUTUAL OF KENTUCKY LEGALSIFTER (DIGITAL EXHIBITOR) LEMONGRASS SPA/FRESH, CLEAN & NATURAL MELIA REALTY NORTHERN KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION ONE LOGIC SOURCE LLC PEARL INSURANCE PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECT: MENTORING PLUS SMOKEBALL

ANDREA CANNING

SCOTT TUROW

IAN MCDOUGALL

LAW

ZIEGLER & SCHNEIDER, P.S.C.

ANNUAL BANQUET

MEMBERSHIP MIXER

SPECIALTY & COFFEE BREAKS

PUPPY PIT

CHARGING STATION

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS ADAMS LAW O'HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN, CASSIDY, BECK, PLLC TRUSTMARK

10 may/june 2026

11 bench & bar

FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

the ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE in the PRACTICE of LAW BY ANGELA LOGAN EDWARDS A KENTUCKY ETHICS PERSPECTIVE

A rtificial intelligence (“AI”) has rap idly emerged as a powerful tool in the modern legal profession. For nearly two years Lawyers Mutual of Ken tucky has been traversing the state talking to lawyers about using AI and how to do so ethically and responsibly. Lawyers now routinely encounter AI-assisted research platforms, document-review software, pre dictive analytics, and generative drafting tools. These technologies promise efficiency, cost reduction, and expanded access to legal services. At the same time, they introduce ethical risks that strike at the core of profes sional responsibility: competence, diligence, communication, confidentiality, candor, supervision, and fairness.

COMPETENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING SCR 3.130(1.1)

In Kentucky, these concerns are governed by the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct , codified at SCR 3.130 , and fur ther clarified by Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 , The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law . Together, they make clear that AI does not either create new ethical duties or alter a lawyer’s ethical obligation. Rather, AI inten sifies a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities. This article examines the ethical impli cations of AI use through the lens of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, with particular emphasis on the guidance provided in KBA E-457. Another resource for your consideration is ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelli gence Tools .

Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(1.1) requires lawyers to provide “competent representa tion,” defined as the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” While the rule itself does not reference technology, its commentary makes clear that competence evolves alongside changes in legal practice. Comment 6 to SCR 3.130(1.1) (mirroring ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8) expressly states that a lawyer must keep abreast of “changes in the law and its practice, includ ing the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” KBA Ethics Opinion

12 may/june 2026

ethical concerns raised by AI use. SCR 3.130(1.6)(a) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the rep resentation of a client without informed consent, while SCR 3.130(1.6)(c) requires lawyers to make “reasonable efforts” to pre vent unauthorized disclosure or access. AI tools frequently require lawyers to input client facts, legal theories, or draft docu ments into third-party systems. If those systems retain, store, or train on user data, the lawyer may be exposing confidential information to unauthorized third parties. KBA E-457 emphasizes that lawyers must evaluate: • Whether the AI vendor stores or reuses submitted data; Using a publicly available AI platform with out understanding its data policies may constitute a failure to make “reasonable efforts” to protect confidentiality under SCR 3.130(1.6). The ethical risk increases where sensitive or privileged client information is involved. COMMUNICATION AND DISCLOSURE TO CLIENTS SCR 3.130(1.4) Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(1.4) requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed and to explain matters sufficiently to allow clients to make informed decisions regard ing representation. KBA E-457 addresses whether lawyers must disclose their use of AI to clients. The opin ion concludes that routine AI use does not automatically require disclosure , provided that: • The lawyer remains responsible for the work product; • No confidential information is improperly disclosed; and • Whether information is en crypted or otherwise secured; and • Whether contractual protec tions exist to prevent disclosure or reuse.

E-457 interprets this language to mean that lawyers have an ethical duty to under stand the AI tools they use , including both their capabilities and their limitations. The opinion describes reliance upon technology as just another aspect of the competency requirement. Competence in the AI context therefore includes: • Understanding how AI systems generate outputs; • Recognizing the risk of halluci nations, fabricated citations, or flawed reasoning; • Knowing when AI is appropriate and when it is not; and • Ensuring that AI-generated con tent is independently reviewed and verified. A lawyer who relies blindly on AI output without verification risks violating SCR 3.130(1.1), particularly when erroneous information generated by an AI tool affects a client’s legal rights. Importantly, nothing in SCR 3.130(1.1) or Comment 6 man dates that a lawyer actually use AI in his or her practice. Rather, a lawyer must simply understand the “benefits and risks” of AI technology enough to make an informed decision about whether and how to utilize the technology in practice. A corollary rule to SCR 3.130(1.1) is SCR 3.130(1.3), Diligence , requiring a lawyer to “act with reasonable diligence in rep resenting a client.” Comment 1 expands this directive in saying that a “lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client.” While SCR 3.130(1.3) isn’t specifically cited in E-457, it certainly seems logical that a lawyer is not behaving diligently, i.e., in the “interests of the client” if AI can be used to achieve efficiencies and superior results and is not being utilized. Similarly, a lawyer cannot be said to discharge their duty of diligence if he or she does not appropriately review and verify the output generated with AI technology. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA SECURITY SCR 3.130(1.6) Confidentiality is one of the most significant

However, disclosure may be ethically required under SCR 3.130(1.4) when: • AI use materially affects the rep resentation; • The lawyer intends to bill the cli ent for AI-related costs; or

• AI replaces work the client rea sonably expects the lawyer to perform personally.

In these situations, transparency ensures that the client can make informed decisions about representation.

FEES, BILLING, AND REASONABLENESS SCR 3.130(1.5)

The reasonableness of attorney fees is gov erned by SCR 3.130(1.5) . AI raises novel billing questions because it can drastically reduce the time required to perform certain legal tasks. KBA E-457 provides critical guidance: • Lawyers may not bill clients for time saved by AI as if the work were performed manually;

• Lawyers may not charge cli ents for the cost of learning or maintaining competence in AI , as competence is part of profes sional responsibility; and • Lawyers may charge for AI-re lated expenses only if the client agrees in advance, preferably in writing.

Charging excessive fees for AI-assisted work risks violating SCR 3.130(1.5)(a), which prohibits unreasonable fees, and SCR 3.130(8.4)(c), which prohibits dishonest conduct. SUPERVISION AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR AI OUTPUT SCR 3.130(5.1) AND SCR 3.130(5.3) Although AI is not a person, the super visory principles of SCR 3.130(5.1) (responsibilities of lawyers with managerial authority) and SCR 3.130(5.3) (responsibil ities regarding nonlawyer assistance) apply by analogy.

• The client is not misled about how services are being per formed.

13 bench & bar

FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

offending materials cannot be said to be grounded in fact and warranted by exist ing law. While the lawyer submitting such improper materials likely does not intend to harass, cause delay or increase the cost of the litigation, the reality is that the court and opposing counsel will be required to expend resources to address the halluci nated material. Time, effort and expense are required to ferret out such hallucina tions and address them. It only takes a quick search to find a plethora of decisions sanc tioning attorneys for the improper use of AI. Rule 11 may or may not have been the cited basis for the imposition of sanctions, but it certainly provides a basis on which the courts can rely. CONCLUSION The Kentucky Rules of Professional Con duct are fully capable of governing the ethical use of AI. As KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 makes clear, AI does not change what lawyers owe to clients, courts, or the public. Rather, the use of AI heightens the impor tance of those obligations. By grounding AI use in competence (SCR 3.130(1.1)) , confidentiality (SCR 3.130(1.6)) , communication (SCR 3.130(1.4)) , reasonable fees (SCR 3.130(1.5)) , supervision (SCR 3.130(5.1) and (5.3)) , candor (SCR 3.130(3.3)) , and professional integrity (SCR 3.130(8.4)) , Kentucky lawyers can responsibly integrate AI into practice while preserving the profes sion’s core ethical commitments. Used thoughtfully and ethically, AI can enhance, not erode, the quality and integ ANGELA LOGAN EDWARDS is Presi dent & Chief Executive Officer of Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky. Prior to joining Law yers Mutual, she was in private practice and a partner at the Dinsmore & Shohl and Woodward, Hobson & Fulton firms where she practiced in the areas of ERISA/bene fits litigation, commercial litigation law and attorney malpractice defense. Before that, Angela clerked for Hon. Jennifer B. Coff man, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. Edwards received her undergraduate degree from Transylvania University and her law degree from the University of Kentucky. rity of legal representation. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lawyers must ensure that: • AI tools are used in a manner consistent with ethical obliga tions; • Outputs are reviewed and veri fied before use; and • Delegation to AI does not re place professional judgment. KBA E-457 makes clear that lawyers remain fully responsible for all work product , regardless of whether AI assisted in its creation. A failure to supervise AI output adequately may constitute an ethical violation even if no harm results. If you are a managing partner of a firm, you may consider whether the firm needs an Authorized Use Policy (“AUP”) providing guidance and guidelines to coordinate your firm’s consistent ethical use of AI. Consider too whether there is a benefit to systematiz ing the use of AI across all AI users within your firm or organization. MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND DEFENSES Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(3.1) provides that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert and issue, “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” This particu lar Rule is not cited in KBA E-457, but using hallucinated citations or arguments from AI certainly seems to run afoul of the mandate of SCR 3.130(3.1). Knowing that AI can and does generate incorrect material, failing to verify the AI output, and submitting false arguments and authorities to the Court is NOT the assertion of meritorious claims and defenses. It stands to reason that SCR 3.130(3.1) could certainly be implicated by the misuse of AI technology. CANDOR TO THE TRIBUNAL SCR 3.130(3.3) Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(3.3)(a) prohibits lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal. Submitting AI-gener ated content without verifying its accuracy, particularly fabricated citations or misstate ments of law, can violate this rule. Courts nationwide have sanctioned

attorneys who filed AI-generated pleadings containing false authorities. In Kentucky, such conduct would implicate: • SCR 3.130(3.3) (candor to the tribunal)

• SCR 3.130(1.1) (competence) • SCR 3.130(5.1) (supervision)

AI does not excuse inaccuracies; it increases the lawyer’s duty to verify. As “location, location, location” is to real estate, “verify, verify, verify” is to the ethical use of AI output.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

CONCERNS SCR 3.130(5.5)

SCR 3.130(5.5) prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. While AI itself is not a lawyer, ethical concerns arise if AI systems provide legal advice directly to clients without meaning ful lawyer involvement. Lawyers must ensure that AI is used as a tool , not as a substitute for legal judgment. Allowing AI to independently advise cli ents or make strategic legal decisions risks violating Rule 5.5 and undermining the lawyer’s professional role. RULE 11 EXPOSURE In addition to the ethical duties discussed herein, a misuse of AI potentially exposes a lawyer to Rule 11 sanctions. Rule 11 pro vides, in pertinent part, that the “signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certifi cation by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” The submission of papers to the courts with hallucinated facts, arguments and/ or authorities have clearly not been read and vetted by the attorney. Likewise, the

14 may/june 2026

ETHICAL AI PRACTICE CHECKLIST FOR KENTUCKY LAWYERS (SCR 3.130 & KBA ETHICS OPINION E-457)

6. CANDOR TO COURTS AND THIRD PARTIES Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(3.3) ☐ Verify all legal authorities and factual statements generated by AI. ☐ Confirm that citations are real, accurate, and current. ☐ Never submit AI-generated content without inde pendent review. ☐ Correct errors promptly if AI-related inaccuracies are discovered. ☐ Monitor court rules or standing orders regarding AI disclosure. 7. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW SAFEGUARDS Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(5.5) ☐ Ensure AI tools do not provide unsupervised legal advice to clients. ☐ Maintain lawyer oversight over all advice affecting legal rights. ☐ Do not permit clients to rely directly on AI outputs as legal counsel. ☐ Avoid marketing AI as a replacement for attorney judgment.

APPENDIX:

1. COMPETENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AWARENESS Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(1.1); Comment 6

☐ Identify all AI tools used in your practice (research, drafting, review, analytics). ☐ Understand how each tool functions at a basic level (inputs, outputs, limitations). ☐ Stay current on AI developments relevant to your practice area. ☐ Independently verify all AI-generated legal analysis, citations, and factual assertions. ☐ Do not rely on AI output as a substitute for legal judgment. ☐ Ensure AI use enhances—not replaces—thoroughness and preparation. 2. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(1.6)(a), (c) ☐ Review AI vendor privacy policies and data-retention practices. ☐ Confirm whether submitted data is stored, reused, or used to train models. ☐ Avoid entering confidential or privileged client information into unsecured or public AI tools. ☐ Use AI platforms designed for legal professionals where possible. ☐ Implement reasonable safeguards (encryption, access controls, vendor agreements). ☐ Obtain client consent if AI use creates non-routine confidentiality risks. 3. CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND DISCLOSURE Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(1.4) ☐ Determine whether AI use materially affects representation or strategy. ☐ Disclose AI use when necessary for informed client decision-making. ☐ Explain AI-related risks and limitations when relevant. ☐ Avoid misrepresenting how legal work is performed. ☐ Ensure engagement letters address technology use where appropriate. 4. FEES, BILLING, AND COST TRANSPARENCY Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(1.5); SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) ☐ Review billing practices for AI-assisted tasks. ☐ Do not bill for time saved by AI as attorney time. ☐ Do not charge clients for AI training or competence maintenance. ☐ Clearly disclose and obtain consent for AI-related expenses passed through to clients. ☐ Ensure all fees remain reasonable in light of increased efficiency. ☐ Avoid deceptive or misleading billing descriptions. 5. SUPERVISION AND QUALITY CONTROL Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(5.1); SCR 3.130(5.3) ☐ Treat AI as a tool requiring supervision, not an autonomous decision-maker. ☐ Establish internal review procedures for AI-generated work product. ☐ Ensure attorneys, not AI, make final legal determinations. ☐ Train staff on appropriate and ethical AI use. ☐ Maintain accountability for all work submitted to clients or tribunals.

15 bench & bar AI tools, when used ethically and responsibly, can greatly enhance efficiency. In the spirit of continuing to encourage the use of AI, please know that AI assisted in the creation of this article and checklist. It was used as an assistive tool subject to human, professional oversight. 10. PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT REMINDER ☐ Remember: AI is an assistive technology—not a lawyer. ☐ The lawyer remains ethically and professionally responsible at all times. ☐ When in doubt, apply traditional ethical principles and seek guidance. 8. BIAS, FAIRNESS, AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY Relevant Rules: SCR 3.130(8.4)(d) ☐ Evaluate whether AI tools may embed or amplify bias. ☐ Monitor outputs for discriminatory or unfair impacts. ☐ Avoid reliance on AI systems that undermine fairness or justice. ☐ Use AI in ways consistent with the lawyer’s duty to the legal system. 9. DOCUMENTATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT ☐ Document decisions regarding AI tool selection and use. ☐ Retain records of vendor terms and data-security representations. ☐ Update firm policies as AI tools evolve. ☐ Incorporate AI considerations into malpractice risk reviews. ☐ Periodically audit AI use for ethical compliance.

FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECH & TRUST:

APPLYING AN IT MINDSET TO AI IN ESTATE PLANNING AND ELDER LAW BY SHELLY ANN KAMEI

L ong before I navigated the labyrinth of the law, I worked in the tech boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, translating complex systems into practical workflows as a technical writer, trainer, and project manager. That background informs my view of today’s AI gold rush: it isn’t magic or madness. AI is a powerful tool that requires guardrails and human oversight to ensure it serves, rather than undermines, our ethical obligations—particularly in estate planning and elder law, where risks may take years or decades to surface. The most persistent mistake I see in the legal community is what I call the ostrich problem: AI feels overwhelming, so some attorneys try to ignore it. But opting out isn’t possible. If you use the Microsoft, Google, or Apple ecosystems, you are already relying on AI—often in ways you don’t see. You can restrict features, but you cannot avoid AI. The second major mistake is buying a sub scription to a popular AI tool and then asking, “What can I do with this?” That is the opposite of how seasoned IT profession als approach software and systems. MY IT MANTRA IS SIMPLE: “DON’T PICK UP A HAMMER AND SPEND YOUR DAY SEARCHING FOR NAILS.” THE IT VETERAN’S APPROACH TO AI

We begin with the problem: Where is there a bottleneck that could be relieved through surgical use of AI? Once the need is defined, we evaluate all automation and AI tools through Kentucky Legacy Law’s technical sovereignty lens. This is a three-pillar framework as follows: Does the provider contractually and tech nically segregate our data from their global training set? Is the data siloed within my tenant? 1 If not, is the connection secured consistent with our professional obligations? If needed, can I produce a log of every interaction? Do not compromise your ethics for cost, speed, or even a seemingly superior plan. THE MULTI-HEADED HYDRA It’s a mistake to treat AI as an isolated threat. The convergence of multiple tech nologies supercharges the dangers each would pose on its own. AI magnifies these risks exponentially, but it’s only one part of a much larger, interconnected ecosystem. The related risks include: 2 1. THE PERIMETER Much of your firm’s data no longer lives on machines you control inside your office. It

resides in thirdparty storage in the cloud. This means it’s replicated across multiple data centers, subject to vendors’ retention settings, logs, and background services. In practical terms, your confidentiality obliga tions extend beyond your own hardware to every platform that stores, caches, backs up, or indexes your files. If you do not know the terms of service for these custodians of your data, you may be inadvertently breaching your ethical duties. 2. METADATA: SILENT BUT PERSISTENT Modern AI sees what human cannot. It rec ognizes that a PDF is a layered container where residual data survives cosmetic edits. Searchandreplace or black rectangles don’t remove that data; it remains selectable, searchable, and extractable. This happened in the Epstein files release: some PDFs used visual overlays rather than true, destructive redaction, so people could copypaste or otherwise extract the hidden text. In other words, the black bars covered the text, but the text was still inside the file either behind the bars or as metadata. The only safe approach is true redaction ( i.e. , permanently removing content and sanitizing metadata), not visual masking. In my firm, we redact using this method, print the document, and then rescan it. There is no hidden data retained in the document. 3

16 may/june 2026

3. AMBIENT INTELLIGENCE We are surrounded by always on devices. These are sophisticated datacollection nodes designed to listen for wake words. 4 These devices constantly buffer audio to the cloud. An overheard conversation may become a stored conversation. A stored conversation may become discoverable. 4. HIDDEN COMPUTERS For many of us, the term computer conjures up an image of a desktop or laptop. Our mobile phones, our televisions, and even our ovens are now computers. These devices are networked, sensor-rich, and voice-en abled. Each device adds a node area where privileged or sensitive information can be captured, cached, or inferred from seem ingly innocuous conversations. NO LONGER JUST FOUR WALLS Your office is no longer contained within four walls. Your firm is defined by the reach of the devices in any physical location in which work is being conducted. Every firm should have an audio & visual AI No-Fly Zones. Consider: The Smart Speaker Rule: Prohibit smart speakers in any room where client meetings or privileged calls occur ( e.g. , a home office, relative’s homes, a hotel room). Mobile Voice Assistants: Require voice assistants to be disabled during client work. They are listening for a trigger which will prompt them to upload a client’s confiden tial data to a manufacturer’s server. Spatial & Wearable Tech: Prohibit smart glasses and devices which can map the room visually, creating a digital twin of your confidential documents and workspace. The Dashboard Risk: Prohibit taking sensitive client calls in cars with smart dashboards that listen in, then sync audio to the manufacturer’s cloud to improve the user experience. TECHNICAL GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM 1. NO CONSUMER SOFTWARE ALLOWED I have two bedrock rules for AI. The first is

4. HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP AND THE AUDIT TRAIL Our second bedrock rule is a human-in-the loop policy: every AI-assisted document receives human review. This is not unique to AI—an attorney should always review work produced by nonattorneys. Because we trust AI less than humans, our review of AI-generated work is more thorough. AI may draft, summarize, or flag inconsisten cies, but it does not exercise legal judgment. Where appropriate, we keep an audit trail by saving the original AI output alongside the attorney’s review. This shows that AI was used only for efficiency and that a licensed lawyer made all final judgments and verifi cations. We also treat prompts as sensitive work product and scrub them from deliv erables to prevent any leakage of internal legal strategy. MY AI STACK My AI stack is always evolving but currently includes tools for (1) drafting and editing; (2) review of individual documents and entire plans; (3) maintaining and search ing a curated set of codes, regulations, case law, and agency manuals for specific topics; (4) generating graphics and plainlanguage explanations for clients; and, (5) creating a learning library for the firm. 1. MICROSOFT COPILOT – BUSINESS LICENSE We use Copilot as an editor and drafting partner for correspondence, marketing materials, conference papers, articles, and other nonlegal documents. We use it to help confirm that our individual documents and our plans are complete, consistent, and grammatically sound. We also use Copilot as an audit tool for large data sets to confirm that human review was accurate and complete. For complex Med icaid applications and probate inventories, we create structured review packets—our human analysis, source data, and governing rules—so Copilot functions as a secondary audit layer. Because Teams transcriptions stay within our Microsoft tenant, we use Teams for meetings. Copilot can convert Teams tran scripts into summary emails, log entries,

simple: all work must be done in business or enterprisegrade software and accounts. Consumer platforms may be convenient, but in many of them you are not the cus tomer—the data recipient is. That data may be your client’s. Because AI impossible to avoid, software should be under a business or enterprise license. Use services that explicitly promise a walled garden. For example, Microsoft 365 Business keeps our prompts and responses inside our organization’s tenant and does not use them to train the model. We only use tools that state this clearly in writing in their terms of service and published documentation. If HIPAA applies to your client matter, you are not automatically protected by a busi ness or enterprise license. HIPAA doesn’t come from a license—it requires a Busi ness Associate Agreement (BAA) with any vendor that will create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI. You must have an executed BAA, or you are not protected. HIPAA pro tection through a BAA is available only for inscope services when the firm is a covered entity and properly configured. While you can safely use a Mac in your law firm, do not use iCloud for storage. Apple’s iCloud Terms explicitly prohibit using iCloud in any way that would make Apple a HIPAA Business Associate. For non-HIPAA client work, we still avoid Apple’s consumer cloud and products that piggy-back on it because it lacks the contractual commit ments we require. 2. NO SHADOW ECOSYSTEMS, NO MIXED ECOSYSTEMS Anyone handling client data must use our approved ecosystem on any device. Shadow ecosystems ( e.g. , personal or student sub scriptions) and personal desktops are not permitted. 3. INFORMED CONSENT: THE AI DISCLOSURE CLAUSE Our engagement letters now include a specific AI Disclosure Clause informing clients that we utilize advanced technology to enhance efficiency and accuracy, main tain a sovereign environment, and enforce human review protocol.

17 bench & bar

FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Finally, we use it to write code. One per sistent limitation of the Microsoft ecosystem is the absence of a true universal findandre place function across multiple documents. I possess the necessary Visual Basic skills, but there is no reason to spend my time when GPT can generate the code in seconds. If I need to update a date that appears in several documents, I simply ask GPT to draft the code which I then run in Developer tab of Microsoft Word. The date is updated across Estate planning and elder law are practice areas where the fruit ripens slowly. It may be years before the work proves sustaining or rotten. Our processes must be set up with that in mind. While we have many elements in our IT policy, the two bedrock rules are simple: business and enterprise subscrip tions only and human review always. The payoff isn’t just efficiency—it’s durable, defensible outcomes backed by clear policy and a culture that puts professional respon sibility first. all open documents in seconds. BUILT FOR THE LONG GAME

task lists, or Loop components (our digital whiteboard). 2. NOTEBOOKLM - GOOGLE BUSINESS LICENSE We upload our own sources into individ ual Notebooks which serve as project files for recurring practice matters ( e.g. , tax law issues, KRS 389A, Medicaid applications). These serve several purposes: First, we use them as a learning library to enhance and test our knowledge of a subject by que rying the sources, creating podcasts and quizzes, etc. Second, we use Notebooks to update and refine our workflows and to keep up to date on changes to frequently referenced laws and sources. When the Medicaid eligibility rules changed with respect to Required Minimum Districu tiosn RMDs) 5 from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), my Notebook caught the change immediately. This was before I had noticed it through more conventional means. Lastly, we use Notebooks as a draft ing aid where we need to draw heavily on our sources. For example, we use it to help write plain language summary letters for Medicaid workers who process applications. These letters require citations to federal and state code, regulations, and the Kentucky Medicaid operations manual. NotbookLM assists in verbiage and citations but never replaces legal and practical judgment. 3. CHATGPT BUSINESS We utilize ChatGPT as a tailored search engine. When searching for a missing heir or current custodian of a client’s account, projects set up specifically for the tasks complete them quickly and thoroughly at little to no cost to the client. We utilize GPT when writing articles and conference presentations. One project searches the internet for similar presen tations, articles, and other sources. Our “Write Like Me” project draws on prior writing samples which it keeps for refer ence. It contains detailed instructions about style, content, and verification of sources. Before submitting any work for presentation or publication, I ask the project to review it. If its suggestions are sound, I revise my work. 6

SHELLY ANN KAMEI is the owner and lead attorney at Ken tucky Legacy Law , serving clients from

offices in Louisville and Bardstown. Her practice focuses on estate planning, elder law, special needs law, guardianship, and probate. She graduated with honors from the University of San Diego School of Law and is completing a Tax LL.M. at Boston University, with expected graduation in August 2026. Licensed in both Kentucky and California, she is an active member of the Kentucky Bar Association Elder Law Section, the Kentucky Guardianship Asso ciation, and the Kentucky Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA). She has served on the boards of all three organizations and remains committed to advancing the practice of elder and disability law throughout the Commonwealth. She also supports the Speed Art Museum and the Filson His torical Society. Before entering the legal profession, Kamei worked in information technology as a technical writer, trainer, and project manager.

ENDNOTES 1 In software, a tenant is a logically separate environment within a shared system where a single organization’s users, data, settings, and activity are isolated from those of other organizations. Although multiple tenants may run on the same underlying infrastructure, each tenant operates as if it were its own private workspace. For example, Microsoft 365 is software used by many organizations, but each organization has its own tenant in which its data is kept separate from that of other Microsoft 365 users. 2 And as serious as these risks already are, quantum computing will make them even more urgent. A quan tum computer is a new kind of machine that can try millions of possible answers at the same time, instead of checking them one-by-one like normal computers. That means it will eventually be powerful enough to break the digital locks—our current encryption—that protect emails, bank records, client files, and even government secrets. Experts warn that once these machines reach full strength, they could unlock en crypted information in minutes. Criminals and foreign actors already know this, which is why some are collecting encrypted data today so they can “open it later” once quantum computers are ready. In plain terms: When quantum computing arrives, any sensitive document that isn’t protected by new, quantumsafe security could be read like an open book. That future isn’t here yet, but it’s close enough that major compa nies, the U.S. government, and cybersecurity experts are urging everyone to prepare now. 3 Even that may not be enough if the data behind the redaction can be inferred from other data available to the AI. If the AI can infer a redacted identity by analyzing contextual clues within the document, it may reconstruct what the human drafter believed was concealed. 4 Wake words are predefined phrases (such as “Hey Siri,” “Alexa,” or “Ok Google”) that always-on devices are programmed to detect in order to activate voice recording or command processing. To recognize these trigger phrases, such devices continuously monitor ambient audio, even when they appear to be idle. 5 Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) are mandatory withdrawals that must be taken annually from certain taxdeferred retirement accounts, such as traditional IRAs, once the account holder reaches the age specified under federal tax law. Failure to take an RMD can result in significant IRS penalties, and RMD amounts are generally treated as countable income for Medicaid eligibility purposes. 6 After initial drafting, this article was reviewed by Copilot, Gemini, and ChatGPT. All made helpful substan tive suggestions as well as flagging grammatical errors and deviations from my KYLL style guide. Ironically, Gemini was far more defensive of the abilities of Copilot than Copilot itself.

18 may/june 2026