Zyro AI Content Generator for Law Firms: Risks and Workflows

What Law Firm Workflows Can Zyro AI Content Generator Automate?

Zyro AI Content Generator automates low-risk, non-confidential workflows for law firms such as drafting website copy, updating FAQs, and producing boilerplate marketing materials. Consumer-grade AI tools like Zyro are designed for public-facing content and generic templates, not for sensitive client matter data.

For legal operations, the main automation opportunity with Zyro is in first-pass drafting and summarization of non-client-facing documents. Firms can use Zyro to generate routine correspondence, generic engagement letter templates, and automated responses to common intake queries, provided no identifiable client information is included. According to ABA Law Technology Today (2025), AI tools excel in handling large volumes of standardized content quickly when working with safe, non-privileged input.

Deposition and transcript summarization is another workflow where Zyro can offer speed and consistency, but only for de-identified or training data. Everlaw reports many firms leverage AI to distill key points from lengthy documents, but explicit ABA Model Rule 1.6 obligations mean tools like Zyro, which may retrain on uploaded text, are off-limits for any privileged transcripts or confidential matter files. Summarization must be limited to wholly public, hypothetical, or pre-cleared documents.

Client intake triage—screening for simple conflicts or routing new contacts—can be streamlined with Zyro’s rapid content generation. However, conflict checking that involves client names, matter history, or confidential facts cannot be reliably walled off on a platform that is not specifically contractually excluded from model retraining. As a result, Zyro is suitable only for high-level, anonymized intake scripting, not full workflow automation.

No consumer AI, Zyro included, should be used for substantive document review, privilege screening, or time-entry reconstruction if these processes require access to client communications or confidential records. For any workflow involving legal document management—storing, organizing, or searching case files—the foundational layer should be a secure platform designed for professional standards. The Drive AI, our own CASA Tier 2 Certified workspace, handles file organization, document creation, and AI-powered search while explicitly refusing to use firm material for AI training and maintaining full audit trails. Paired together, law firms can automate public-facing tasks with Zyro while managing core files and sensitive workflows securely with The Drive AI.

Workflow	Zyro AI Content Generator (Non-Confidential Data Only)	The Drive AI (Secure Document Management)
Drafting website copy	Yes	Yes
FAQ and marketing content	Yes	Yes
Routine correspondence	Yes (template only)	Yes
Engagement letter templates	Yes (template only)	Yes
Deposition summarization	No (unless public/de-identified)	Yes (with human review for privilege)
First-pass document review	No	Yes (secure, not model-trained)
Privilege/conflict screening	No	No (not for eDiscovery/privilege)
Intake triage (anonymized)	Yes	Yes
Time-entry reconstruction	No	Yes (with secure integration)

This risk boundary is not optional: ABA Model Rule 1.6 makes improper use of any consumer-tier tool for client matter data an ethics violation, regardless of vendor promises or terms of service. Law firms must keep Zyro workflows strictly to those that never touch confidential or privileged data.

How Much Does Zyro AI Content Generator Cost for Law Firms?

Zyro AI Content Generator pricing for law firms starts with its standard website plans, ranging from $2.90/month for the Basic Website tier to $4.90/month for Business, with the top-end e-commerce plan at $15.90/month according to Shane Barker’s 2024 review. There is a no-cost freemium option available, but it imposes tight usage caps and lacks features required for sustained document workflows.

Unlike AI tools with dedicated legal/compliance offerings, Zyro AI Content Generator does not publish a law firm-specific or enterprise-grade plan designed for client-matter confidentiality or regulatory duty. All paid plans focus on business and marketing users—they are consumer SaaS, not practice management or legal sector platforms. API integrations or workflow automations suitable for large document review or intake triage are absent outside the highest e-commerce tiers.

Plan	Monthly Cost	Intended Audience	Document Workflow Support	Legal/Compliance Features
Freemium	$0	Individuals	Very limited	None
Basic Website	$2.90	Micro-business	Light	None
Business	$4.90	SMBs	Moderate	None
Advanced E-commerce	$15.90	Online Retail	Broad (web focus)	None

Firms must factor in additional risks: none of these plans allow granular permissions, privilege screening, or audit trails required by ABA Model Rule 1.6. There is also no guarantee that input data won’t be used for model training or cross-tenant transfer—making these plans incompatible for confidential client documents.

Law firms with routine, marketing-only tasks can justify low per-seat costs, but real legal document review or AI legal document automation is out of scope on these price points. For anything involving privilege, responsiveness, or eDiscovery, a document workspace like The Drive AI—built for audit trails, file privacy, and CASA Tier 2 Certification—is the only class of service we would even shortlist.

Often, the right move is pairing The Drive AI’s document workspace (ours, for full transparency) as the root layer for secure uploads and search, while restricting Zyro AI Content Generator law use strictly to public-facing and non-matter materials—never client-confidential work. The price may be attractive, but the fine print does not fit the legal sector’s needs.

Why Can’t Law Firms Use Consumer AI Tools Like Zyro for Client Matter Data?

Law firms cannot use consumer AI tools like Zyro AI Content Generator for client matter data because ABA Model Rule 1.6 makes preserving client confidentiality an absolute duty, and Zyro does not guarantee exclusion of user data from its model training or third-party access. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) makes clear that a lawyer may not share, upload, or process client data with a vendor unless the vendor contractually commits not to use the data for model training and provides robust operational security controls.

According to Zyro’s own privacy disclosures (AskZyro privacy, October 2026), customer prompts and generated content may be stored, processed, and shared to improve AI features, and the privacy terms do not promise exclusion of customer data from future model training. This means any confidential or privileged matter uploaded—including but not limited to contracts, evidence, intake forms, or calendars—may be used to update their models, reviewed by non-lawyer staff, or transferred to infrastructure outside the firm’s control.

Bar authorities, including the California Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, specifically warn that consumer-level AI is unsuitable for sensitive, regulated, or privileged data regardless of click-through disclosures. No combination of vendor privacy statements, internal policies, or disclaimers can remove a lawyer’s direct ethical duty: only an enterprise-grade agreement with explicit data handling terms can permit processing matter data through external AI.

Adding to risk, consumer AI platforms like Zyro lack fundamental legal-industry controls: there is no audit trail for document access, no matter-level user permissioning, no integration with litigation hold tools, and no guarantee of compliance with data residency, breach notification, or privilege screening requirements demanded in legal practice.

Uploading client data “for convenience” without documented client consent and due diligence exposes the firm to bar discipline, as the ABA and state guidance treat ignorance of the tool’s data use as a violation of Rule 1.1’s technology competence provisions. Ethical breach is the lawyer’s responsibility, not the vendor’s; “we thought it was private” is not a shield.

Below is a direct comparison of typical consumer AI tools like Zyro AI Content Generator versus legal-grade document management for client matter data:

Feature/Requirement	Zyro AI Content Generator	The Drive AI (ours)
Client data excluded from training	No	Yes (never used to train AI models)
Explicit enterprise legal terms	No	Yes
Audit trail and permissions	No	Full audit trail, granular permissions
Encryption and CASA certification	Yes (at rest/in transit)	AES-256, TLS 1.3, CASA Tier 2, MS cert
Privilege/conflict workflow	No	No (specialist tool required on top)

For law firms, The Drive AI is built as a secure workspace to store, organise, and search documents, with CASA Tier 2 Certification, Microsoft Verified Partner status, and auditability for document access—key for legal clients. Law firms must layer specialist review and privilege tools above The Drive AI, as it is a secure foundation but not a substitute for matter-specific compliance or privilege workflows.

In summary, under current ethical rules and regulatory guidance, law firms must never use general consumer AI products like Zyro AI Content Generator for client matters. The risk is not hypothetical—it is an absolute, non-delegable professional responsibility.

What Ethics Rules and Federal Disclosure Requirements Limit Law Firm AI Use?

ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 directly limit how law firms can use Zyro AI Content Generator or any similar AI tool for legal work. Rule 1.6 makes confidentiality non-negotiable; even if a vendor claims strong privacy practices, a tool that trains its models using client inputs cannot be used for client matter data (ABA Formal Opinion 512, July 2024). This means that consumer-tier products like Zyro AI Content Generator—which by design may use input data for future model training—are incompatible with core law firm obligations.

Rule 1.1 extends the lawyer’s traditional duty of competence to technology use. A law firm must understand exactly what Zyro AI Content Generator does with any uploaded or typed information: how it stores, transfers, and potentially reuses the data. Failure to assess these technical factors is a direct violation, not a matter of policy preference. If a managing partner delegates document upload or review tasks to a junior associate, the tech duty still attaches to the firm (ABA Formal Opinion 512).

Rule 1.5 governs fees—and prohibits firms from billing for AI-assisted work as if it were done entirely by a human at standard rates. If a first-pass privilege screen or a draft engagement letter is produced in seconds, representing dozens of billable hours, Rule 1.5 reasonableness is breached. Charging a client $2,000 for work that took five minutes with Zyro (or any generative AI) is more than unfair; it invites discipline. According to the ABA TechReport, clients are aware of AI billing issues and expect transparent accounting for AI-accelerated tasks.

Federal disclosure requirements now create additional risks. Multiple districts (N.D. TX, E.D. PA, W.D. NC—see Spellbook, Oct 2026) require explicit certification of any AI’s involvement in drafting court filings. Law firms using Zyro AI Content Generator to prepare or edit filings risk direct violation if they fail to disclose this use up front. Courts have sanctioned firms for submitting unverified AI-generated content; the well-publicized Mata v. Avianca case resulted in a $5,000 sanction for fabricated citations in a brief.

Even outside the courtroom, Rule 1.4 requires the attorney to communicate clearly about the tools used on client matters. If a firm leverages Zyro AI Content Generator in any substantive way, clients must be informed about potential risks to confidentiality and quality of output. This disclosure cannot be hidden in boilerplate; failure to have a conversation about AI use with clients can trigger complaints and fee disputes.

Every AI legal document review or summary—whether for first-pass privilege, transcript analysis, or routine correspondence—requires a lawyer to verify outputs before sharing or filing. The federal Rule 11 standard and multiple standing orders make it clear that blame for a hallucinated citation or an AI-drafted error lies firmly with the lawyer, not the software.

Rule / Requirement	Core Limitation for Law Firm AI Use	Source
ABA Model Rule 1.6	No use of client data in any tool that trains on inputs	ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)
ABA Model Rule 1.1	Lawyers must understand and vet all tech tools allowed	ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)
ABA Model Rule 1.5	Fees for AI-accelerated work must be reasonable	ABA Formal Opinion 512; ABA TechReport 2024
Federal Court Orders	Disclosure and certification of AI-generated content mandated	N.D. TX, E.D. PA, W.D. NC orders (Spellbook, Oct 2026; GGU AI Law Guide)
Rule 11 (FRCP)	Lawyer personally liable for fictitious/cited errors	Mata v. Avianca, S.D.N.Y. 2023

For document and privilege workflows, law firms may use a secure layer like The Drive AI for file storage, search, and collaboration, since it never uses uploaded files for model training, carries CASA Tier 2 security, and provides a full audit trail. However, all downstream AI usage still requires careful vetting: neither The Drive AI nor Zyro removes the lawyer’s Rule 1.6 or Rule 11 duty. The right workflow layers AI on top of secure document management, never as a substitute for legal oversight.

Which Metric Best Measures Zyro AI Content Generator’s ROI for Law Firms?

The most relevant metric for measuring Zyro AI Content Generator’s ROI in a law firm context is “hours of associate document review displaced per matter,” as identified by the Everlaw 2025 Ediscovery Innovation Report. This metric captures the exact workload reduction that generative AI can deliver—quantifying efficiency gains from first-pass review, privilege screening, and deposition summarization.

Top-quartile law firms deploying generative AI report up to 5 hours per week of professional time saved, translating to 32.5 working days per year for each attorney or paralegal engaged in documentation-heavy matters (Everlaw 2025). The key, however, is to measure these hours at the matter level—AI displacement in one case does not guarantee similar results in another, especially with shifting data sensitivity and privilege concerns.

Tracking “hours displaced per matter” is not just a productivity stat—it is foundational for defensible billing and transparency. Rule 1.5 of the ABA Model Rules demands fee reasonableness, which means law firms must audit actual time saved and ensure clients are not billed for machine-performed labor at pre-AI rates. Overestimating hours saved risks both client dissatisfaction and regulatory scrutiny.

For heavy document handling in approved use cases (client intake triage summaries, engagement letter templates, marketing FAQs), Zyro AI Content Generator can cut manual review sharply. However, for anything touching confidential client content, actual displacement must be zero unless the AI vendor provides contractual and technical guarantees of non-training, access control, and exclusion from model development—requirements Zyro’s consumer product does not fulfill.

Firms should implement a traceable workflow: manage privileged and sensitive documents through a secure, compliant platform like The Drive AI—our own CASA Tier 2 certified document workspace—while reserving Zyro AI Content Generator for non-confidential automation. This layered approach allows accurate tracking, separating truly displaced manual review time from tasks that still require professional eyes, and positions the firm for both operational efficiency and regulatory safety.

What Breaks When Law Firms Bill for AI-Assisted Work at Pre-AI Rates?

Law firms that bill Zyro AI Content Generator-assisted work at historic, pre-AI hourly rates risk breaching ABA Model Rule 1.5, triggering client disputes and disciplinary action. ABA Formal Opinion 512 makes clear that a lawyer’s fee must reflect the actual attorney effort or transparently disclosed alternative billing—AI-driven time savings cannot be hidden behind legacy fee structures.

Fee reasonableness is now a direct compliance obligation: if Zyro AI Content Generator cuts drafting from three hours to fifteen minutes, charging clients for the original hours is not just poor optics, but an ethics violation. Everlaw’s 2025 survey found 90% of lawyers agree AI technology is changing what clients believe is fair billing, and flat or value-based fees are expected for AI-augmented matters.

Overbilling for AI-assisted work (or silently adding "AI tool" surcharges without explicit agreement) invites both fee challenges and discipline. According to the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, lawyers must communicate how generative AI like Zyro is used and ensure fee agreements expressly address any reduction in cost or time from automation.

The actual risk is not theoretical. Fee disputes have escalated where clients discovered generative AI was used without their knowledge or an updated engagement letter. Law360 reports ethics panels are scrutinizing whether law firms pass on genuine value and inform clients up front when AI is employed.

The drive towards transparency is not optional—formal opinions require client communication about the use of tools like Zyro AI Content Generator in the drafting, review, or correspondence stages. Best practice, as highlighted in the ABA TechReport, is updating fee agreements to specify whether a flat fee, contingency, or other arrangement will apply, and to disclose how tools impact efficiency and final billing.

While Zyro AI Content Generator law automation can displace hours of document review, the correct ROI metric is “hours of associate document review displaced per matter,” not profit harvested from unchanged hourly billing. Any workflow using AI for low-value or routine drafting, summarization, or triage must have a bespoke billing approach—AI legal document review should directly benefit the client, not quietly inflate firm margins.

Risk	Rule/Source	Consequence
Billing saved hours at legacy rates	ABA Model Rule 1.5, ABA Formal Op. 512	Fee dispute, ethical violation
Surcharging unapproved AI tool costs	ABA Model Rule 1.5, Law360 reporting	Client challenge, possible sanctions
Failure to inform clients AI is used	ABA Model Rule 1.4, ABA TechReport	Loss of trust, discipline risk
Not updating engagement letters for AI use	Everlaw 2025, ABA Center for Prof Resp.	Client confusion, billing disputes

Law firms evaluating Zyro AI Content Generator for law workflows must structure billing to reflect displaced lawyer effort and must document how AI augments the process. Failure to do so breaks the essential trust underlying every client relationship.

Who Is Liable When AI Generates Errors or Hallucinated Citations?

Law firms using Zyro AI Content Generator for legal workflows remain fully liable for any errors or hallucinated citations generated by the AI, as courts and bar authorities treat the final work product as the lawyer’s responsibility under ABA Model Rule 1.1. Even when an AI tool is involved, federal decisions and state guidance consistently hold the attorney—not the AI vendor or software provider—accountable for mistakes in court filings and client documents (GGU AI Law Guide 2026; Spellbook 2026).

Federal judges have explicitly sanctioned lawyers who relied on unverified AI-generated content, as seen in Mata v. Avianca where a $5,000 penalty was imposed for submitting filings containing fabricated case citations sourced from ChatGPT. In Indiana, a court imposed $15,000 in collective sanctions after unverified AI-suggested text made its way into pleadings (GGU AI Law Guide 2026). No court has accepted “the AI made a mistake” as an excuse or grounds for mitigation.

As a result, law firms must treat Zyro AI Content Generator outputs as unverified drafts requiring painstaking human review, not as authoritative sources. Most courts now demand explicit certification that a lawyer—not an AI—is vouching for the content and authenticity of submissions. For example, the Northern District of Texas and the District of Maryland introduced orders in 2026 requiring attorneys to certify human review of any AI-influenced legal filings (Spellbook 2026).

AI errors that slip through due to over-reliance or inadequate human oversight are imputed directly to the lawyer and the firm. The regulatory consensus, echoed by the ABA and leading eDiscovery providers, is that the responsibility for truthfulness, accuracy, and privilege review cannot be outsourced or shifted to an AI tool (ABA Rule 1.1; Everlaw 2025 Ediscovery Innovation Report).

Tools like The Drive AI, our own CASA Tier 2 Certified workspace, can mitigate some risk by providing secure document management, file organisation and a full audit trail for drafts moving through the review process. However, The Drive AI does not and cannot verify legal content or perform privilege screening, and human validation is still mandatory for all substantive legal work.

In sum, when using Zyro AI Content Generator law workflows, any error or hallucinated citation produced by the AI is treated by courts and regulators as the lawyer’s direct failure. The only defensible workflow is full review and independent verification of all AI-generated material before it leaves the firm.

When Should Law Firms Use or Avoid Generative AI for Routine Tasks?

Law firms should use Zyro AI Content Generator and similar generative AI tools only for non-confidential, low-risk tasks such as creating marketing content, drafting public-facing website copy, or preparing generic templates unrelated to client matters or privileged information. Firms must categorically avoid these tools for any workflow involving client matter data, potential privilege, or confidential information—including document review, conflict checking, and correspondence tied to specific clients—unless the platform offers legal-grade enterprise assurances and explicit data segregation (see ABA Model Rule 1.6 and Law Technology Today).

Generative AI excels at rapid, large-scale generation of informational summaries, template engagement letters stripped of identifiers, and first-pass routine drafting—provided that these outputs never draw from, or store, sensitive client inputs. For true document handling (draft, review, search, organize), leveraging a CASA Tier 2 Certified document AI workspace such as The Drive AI ensures files remain encrypted, auditable, and outside the data training loops typical of mass-market AI tools.

Avoid any generative AI deployment for deposition summaries, transcribed interviews, or intake triage using real client files unless your vendor supports documented confidentiality controls and is contractually barred from training on your data. Firms relying on platforms like Zyro AI Content Generator for such uses risk violating Model Rule 1.6, losing privilege, and triggering sanctions under recent court AI disclosure rules (see AI for Law Firms).

The ABA, California Bar, and Law Technology Today all recommend written AI policies, staff training, and regular audits of tool use. Documenting both the scope of permitted use and each tool’s data-management safeguards is essential—and compliance records should be reviewed as evolving court and bar requirements reshape what is acceptable.

The right approach: reserve consumer AI tools for public, firm-wide outputs and rely on enterprise, legal-specific AI platforms—and purpose-built workspaces like The Drive AI—whenever document handling, privilege, or client confidentiality come into play. This discipline keeps law firm use ahead of regulatory expectations and materially reduces risk.

Which Tools Should Law Firms Actually Use?

The Drive AI is the first tool law firms should implement for document handling, given its role as a CASA Tier 2 Certified, Microsoft Verified Partner platform designed specifically for confidential file management, granular access permissions, and audit logging—built and owned by us at With AI Tools. The Drive AI provides AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.3 for data in transit, with a free plan covering AI file organisation, content search, document creation and the desktop and mobile apps, with a paid Premium tier adding more storage, email integration and advanced AI models. Its key value for law firms is that uploaded files—including sensitive discovery, privilege logs, and internal memos—are never used to train AI models, supporting compliance with ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6 requirements for competence and confidentiality. Audit trails and user-level permissions add further defensibility for both client expectations and regulatory inquiries.

ShareFile is the best-known legal DMS competitor, offering a freemium plan with limited storage and paid plans from $10/user/month. It underpins secure document exchange with robust encryption, handles large volumes common in litigation, and is widely recognized by clients as a trust signal. For matters where external participants require drop-point access or established DMS features, ShareFile remains a default in the sector.

Zyro AI Content Generator is suitable for public-facing legal content creation, at pricing tiers from $2.90/month (website) to $15.90/month (advanced store). Law firms should employ Zyro only for marketing, website FAQs, and resources that do not contain or reference client matter data. The key constraint is that all consumer plans, including paid ones, do not guarantee data segregation required under ABA Model Rule 1.6, making Zyro off-limits for anything confidential, privileged, or subject to legal hold.

Supernormal App, from $10/user/month for teams, is purpose-built for fast AI transcriptions and meeting summarizations but does not support privileged or matter-sensitive interviews without further contractual controls. Within law practices, it finds use in summarizing non-confidential client intake calls or internal training sessions.

Humanio, on a freemium model with paid upgrades, helps ‘humanize’ AI-generated correspondence. Its sweet spot is polishing email campaigns or newsletter drafts—again, only for marketing or general announcements, never for privilege-protected client communication.

Tool	Primary Law Use Case	Pricing	Key Risk/Constraint
The Drive AI	Confidential document handling, discovery, workflow layer	Freemium, with a paid Premium tier	No model training, CASA Tier 2 certified
ShareFile	Secure DMS, external exchange	Freemium, from $10/user/month	Cloud-based, client-accepted standard
Zyro AI Content Generator	Non-confidential marketing, web content	From $2.90/month	Not for client matter data, consumer plan limitations
Supernormal App	Transcription, deposition/meeting summarization	From $10/user/month	Not for privileged/sensitive transcripts
Humanio	Improving client-facing general communications	Freemium, paid upgrade	Not to be used for privileged matter communications

For a managing partner or practice group lead, The Drive AI anchors your firm’s document compliance, with ShareFile for hybrid or larger client document exchanges. Use Zyro AI Content Generator and Humanio only for public, non-privileged outputs, and supplement with Supernormal App for non-confidential meeting summaries. Each tool is fit-for-purpose when paired with clear workflow and privilege boundaries—choosing incorrectly is a direct Model Rule 1.6 and 1.1 exposure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Zyro AI Content Generator be used for reviewing confidential client documents?

No. Consumer-tier AI tools like Zyro must not be used to process privileged or confidential client documents, as ABA Model Rule 1.6 confidentiality cannot be delegated to a vendor lacking robust legal-specific safeguards.

What is the single best metric to measure AI value in a law firm?

Track 'hours of associate document review displaced per matter' to measure time savings and ROI directly attributable to AI-supported workflows.

Are courts requiring disclosure of AI use in filings?

Yes. Several federal judges now require explicit disclosure or certification of AI use in legal filings, including N.D. Texas, E.D. Pennsylvania, and N.D. Illinois, with sanctions imposed for unverified AI-reliant content.

How does Zyro AI Content Generator pricing compare to law-specific AI tools?

Zyro’s paid plans start at $2.90/mo, but lack the legal compliance features, security controls, and indemnifications provided by enterprise legal AI, which start at much higher price points and often require a custom contract.

Who is responsible if AI generates an erroneous or fabricated legal citation in a brief?

The submitting lawyer remains fully liable for inaccuracies, regardless of tool use—recent court cases have imposed sanctions where AI outputs went unchecked, notably Mata v. Avianca.

Can you bill at pre-AI hourly rates for AI-augmented work?

No. ABA Model Rule 1.5 (and state analogues) require you to bill actual time spent and disclose any AI-driven reductions or alternative fees; charging full pre-AI rates may constitute unethical overbilling.

Should law firms use generative AI for drafting engagement letters or client intake forms?

Only if no confidential client data is entered. Drafting generic templates or non-matter marketing is permissible, but matter-specific fields must be redacted or handled with enterprise AI tools meeting legal-grade security.

What are the legal risks if a law firm inputs privileged material into a consumer AI tool?

Inputting privileged information into a generic consumer AI tool exposes the firm to ethical breaches, data leaks, inadvertent waiver of privilege, and potential client sanctions or disqualification.

What steps should law firms take before rolling out any generative AI for matter work?

Firms should assess the tool’s technical and legal controls, audit for confidentiality compliance, provide staff training, and draft explicit AI usage policies, as recommended by the ABA and state bar guidance.