Estimated reading time: 3 minutes · Last updated:
Lauren W. Waller and Edward T. White, partners at Williams Mullen, presented a CLE Institute 2026 session on lawyers’ ethical obligations when using generative artificial intelligence. The recording of that 10.02.2026 session is available with accompanying PDF materials; the hosts frame the discussion around client confidentiality, supervision and verification of AI outputs. The page notes the CLE applications attached to the live event were for live webinar credit only and the recording is not eligible for CLE credit in any state. Contact details listed on the page include T. 804.420.6590 for Waller and T. 804.420.6338 for White.
Key takeaways
- Presenters: The session was presented by Lauren W. Waller and Edward T. White, both identified as partners at Williams Mullen.
- Event: This presentation formed part of CLE Institute 2026 and was posted on 10.02.2026.
- CLE credit: The page states the CLE applications were for live webinar credit only and the recordings are not applicable for CLE credit in any state.
- Materials: PDF materials for the session are available from the hosting page.
Table of contents
What the CLE session covered
The recorded CLE session explored lawyers' ethical obligations when incorporating generative AI into legal practice. The presenters, Lauren W. Waller and Edward T. White, framed the discussion around established duties: protecting client confidences, ensuring competent supervision of nonlawyer tools, and verifying factual outputs produced by models. The session was part of CLE Institute 2026 and the hosting page makes PDF materials available for practitioners who want the session slides and cited authorities. Attendees were told the program's CLE applications applied to the live webinar only; the recording itself is stated as not carrying CLE credit.
Ethical issues the presenters emphasised
Waller and White highlighted three practical concerns lawyers must address when relying on generative AI: confidentiality of client data sent to models, the duty to supervise outputs used in client work, and the need to verify accuracy before filing or advising. The presenters used hypothetical practice scenarios to show how model hallucination and data retention policies at vendors can create exposure for attorneys. The materials on the hosting page point practitioners toward risk-allocation in vendor contracts and careful internal protocols for prompt review of AI-generated drafts.
Practical steps for law firms
The session concluded with a short checklist firms can adapt: identify where generative AI is used, document vendor terms, train supervising lawyers, and log verification steps before relying on outputs. The presenters urged firms to update internal policies and to record audits showing who reviewed model outputs and when. The Williams Mullen page provides PDF materials to support implementation, and the firm lists contact numbers for the presenters: T. 804.420.6590 for Lauren W. Waller and T. 804.420.6338 for Edward T. White.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Presenters | Lauren W. Waller; Edward T. White |
| Event | CLE Institute 2026 (posted 10.02.2026) |
| CLE credit | Live webinar credit only; recording not eligible |
| Materials | PDF materials available |
How this may play out for firms
The case for
- Firms that adopt documented review and vendor-contract practices can reduce exposure from model errors and vendor data-handling policies.
- Availability of recorded sessions and PDF materials makes it easier for firms to standardise training across practice groups.
The case against
- Absent clear, enforceable vendor commitments on data use, client confidentiality risk will remain for firms using third-party models.
- Without state bar guidance specific to generative AI, firms face uneven expectations across jurisdictions about supervision and competence.
What to be careful about
- Client-confidential information could be exposed if vendor retention or reuse policies are not contractually restricted.
- Relying on unverified AI outputs risks filing incorrect facts or legal arguments that compromise competence obligations.
- Inconsistent state-by-state ethics guidance may leave firms uncertain how to apply a single firm-wide AI policy.
The bottom line
The Williams Mullen CLE recording from 10.02.2026 offers practitioners a practical primer on how existing ethics duties apply to generative AI. Presenters Lauren W. Waller and Edward T. White focus on confidentiality, supervision and verification, and the accompanying PDF materials give firms a starting point for policy updates. Because the recording does not carry CLE credit, law firms should use the materials for internal training and track forthcoming state bar guidance or vendor-term changes before adjusting official competence or supervision practices.
What to watch
- Watch for new state bar guidance or model rules on generative AI; no date has been set.
- Watch for updated vendor-model terms from major providers that specify data retention and reuse; no date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
Who presented the CLE session on generative AI ethics?
The session was presented by Lauren W. Waller and Edward T. White, both partners at Williams Mullen, as part of CLE Institute 2026.
Is the recording eligible for CLE credit?
No; the hosting page states the CLE applications were for live webinar credit only and that the recordings are not applicable for CLE credit in any state.
Are materials available to follow the session?
Yes; the Williams Mullen page provides PDF materials linked from the session post to support further review.
Related reading
