Billing for AI-assisted work: what Oregon's AI ethics opinion says about fees

Informational only, not legal advice. TacticalMS is not a law firm. Read more.

Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205, the bar's general opinion on AI tools, includes a section on fees under Oregon RPC 1.5 ¹. In short, the opinion's draft says lawyers may bill reasonable time for case-specific work done with AI, may not inflate or duplicate hours, must tell clients before passing through AI costs, and must treat subscription costs they cannot tie to a matter as overhead ¹. This post walks through that fees section only; our overview of Oregon's two AI ethics opinions covers the rest of the opinion ^{1, 2}.

Which text this post quotes

The quotes below come from the draft opinion as presented to the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors for its February 21, 2025 meeting, where the Legal Ethics Committee recommended adopting it ¹. NWSidebar, published by the Washington State Bar Association, reported on March 24, 2025 that the Oregon State Bar had issued the opinion as 2025-205 ². The final published text is on the Oregon State Bar website, and readers comparing language should check that version ^{1, 2}.

What Opinion 2025-205 says about fee rules in general

The draft opinion starts with the baseline rules. It says lawyers "are required to adequately explain their fee arrangements to their clients" ¹. It notes that Oregon RPC 1.5(a) prohibits agreeing to, charging or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee or a clearly excessive amount for expenses, and that RPC 1.5(b) lists the factors for judging what is clearly excessive ¹.

The draft also says that, with limited exceptions, Oregon does not require written fee contracts ¹. It adds that lawyers who do not put payment terms in writing "risk problems in proving their right to a particular fee and the possibility of discipline" ¹.

Billing time when work is done with AI

According to the draft, "Lawyers may charge clients for reasonable time spent for case-specific research and drafting when using AI" ¹. Where AI produces significant time savings, the draft says lawyers may not engage in billing practices "that duplicate charges or that falsely inflate billable hours" ¹.

For that point the draft cites ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 93-379 (1993), describing it as prohibiting billing multiple clients for the same research time or "recycled work product" ¹. The Board of Governors summary of the same section puts it this way: billing practices "must reflect the actual work performed" ¹.

Flat fees and In re Yacob

The draft opinion's discussion of costs says lawyers "must not duplicate charges that are already accounted for as overhead" ¹. It supports that with In re Yacob, 318 Or 10, 18, 860 P2d 811 (1993), which it describes as holding that a lawyer who charges an additional fee for work covered by a flat-fee agreement violates the excessive fee prohibition ¹. The opinion's parenthetical is the only description of the case used here.

Passing AI costs through to clients

The draft says lawyers "must inform their clients, preferably in writing, if they intend to charge clients for the actual costs of using AI" ¹. It compares this to telling clients about the intent to pass on research database costs ¹. The Board summary adds that AI-related costs may be passed along only if they are "clearly disclosed and properly categorized" ¹.

The draft's communication section connects to this as well. It lists, among the factors in deciding whether to tell a client about AI use, whether AI "would have a significant impact on attorney fees or is a cost passed on to the client" ¹.

Subscriptions that cannot be tied to a matter

The draft opinion says lawyers who cannot determine the actual cost for a particular client's matter may not ethically prorate the tool's periodic charges, and "must account for those charges as overhead" ¹. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, adopted January 19, 2024 and cited by the Oregon draft, takes the same position, saying such a lawyer "should account for those charges as overhead" ^{1, 3}.

Learning time and general research

The draft says that, following ABA guidance, lawyers may bill time spent learning an AI tool "at the client's request, subject to a clear agreement with the client" ¹. Otherwise, the draft says, "lawyers may not charge for the time spent developing competence in the use of such tools" ¹.

On research, the draft says clients may not be charged for research "of a general nature that is not case-specific" and meant for the lawyer's own general knowledge ¹. Its footnote points to Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, which quotes a Maryland case: "general education or background research should not be charged to the client" ^{1, 3}.

How this fits with other guidance

The draft opinion says the Legal Ethics Committee reviewed multiple state opinions and ABA Formal Opinion 512 while drafting, and that many of its conclusions reflect guidance from other states and the ABA ¹. NWSidebar described Opinion 2025-205 as "similar in scope and content" to ABA Formal Opinion 512 ². Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 also says AI efficiency "must not result in falsely inflated claims of time" ³.

What the opinion does not settle

The fees section does not set a rate, a method for measuring AI-assisted time or required engagement-letter wording ¹. How these principles apply to a particular fee agreement is a question for the firm and, where needed, a licensed Oregon attorney or the Oregon State Bar's ethics resources ¹.

Not legal advice. This post is general information about law and technology, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and TacticalMS is not a law firm. Laws, rules and ethics opinions change; check the cited sources and talk with a licensed Oregon attorney about any specific situation. Researched and drafted with AI tools from the sources above and checked against our editorial standards. Spot an error? Email intake@tacticalms.dev and we'll fix it.