On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512, its first formal ethics guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (referred to as “GAI”). While addressed to attorneys, these ethical guideposts affect directors and managers when employing GAI in the daily operations of their community associations.

Formal Opinion 512 highlights the duties of competence and confidentiality under Model Rules of Professional Conduct sections 1.1 and 1.6. Directors and managers hold similar fiduciary duties, which have been discussed in the previously posted Best Practices article. The key takeaway as to competency is that directors and managers need to understand that GAI can “hallucinate” – that is, produce false or misleading content. Thus, all GAI-assisted output should be treated as an assistant for the first draft, not as the final editor. Directors and managers can be trained in GAI literacy by focusing on input parameters and output verification to ensure accurate work product.

As for confidentiality, directors and managers are custodians of association records. For every GAI software that an association utilizes, it is important to verify each software’s policies pertaining to data encryption, storage location, document retention, and user accessibility. It is also important to know whether data input by the user is used to train language learning models. These verifications ensure data security and privacy compliance as GAI becomes integrated into the standard operating procedures of associations, especially for niches such as the Safe at Home Program under Civil Code section 5216.

Additionally, Formal Opinion 512 highlights the importance of transparent communication under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.4. Just as attorneys must disclose substantive GAI tool usage to clients, directors and managers have the same obligation. For example, directors and managers maintain a duty to disclose to the community whenever GAI is used to help perform association duties, such as GAI-assisted dictation software that produces meeting transcripts. Disclosing to the community of said use would create an expectation to have all meetings, as well as hearings, transcribed. In turn, transcripts would be responsive to formal records request under Civil Code section 5200 et seq. and become further discoverable in litigation. While GAI-assisted transcription may help document exactly what members say at meetings, the persistent use of GAI-assisted dictation software may burden the association more than help it.  

Further, Formal Opinion 512 also impacts attorneys’ fees under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.5, stating that attorneys should bill only for reviewing GAI output and not simply using it. Directors and managers would be keen to review their engagement agreements and applicable vendor contracts for any terms requiring GAI disclosure and verification. Soon, more attorneys are going to be required to disclose GAI use in fee agreements, and whether the time spent learning or training to use GAI is billed.

Though GAI implicates several fiduciary duties, it also presents an opportunity for community associations to enhance their standard operating procedures. Implementation can start with straightforward, low-sensitive tasks such as a resident newsletter or a welcome flyer to build user confidence. Over time, directors and managers can develop prompting skills without simply pasting content into GAI software and thus inadvertently exposing sensitive information. (e.g., draft a concise, understandable [output] for residents about [topic]; change tone to courteous but firm; create a seasonal maintenance checklist for a community association with [type of amenities] and [X] as the budget).

There are free and very affordable, low-cost options for GAI software, many of which contain templates for infographics, FAQs, or meeting slides. As automated usage grows, associations may need to budget for upgraded versions of software, so long as the cost is justified by work product. At a higher budget tier, and with guidance from legal counsel and an Artificial Intelligence Governance professional, chatbots can be designed and integrated to field association duties when managers are off the clock, such as maintenance requests. Using predictive analytics, directors or managers with business backgrounds may be able to utilize GAI to forecast maintenance and other financial needs when completing reserve studies.

Whether drafting documents, managing communications, or analyzing data, the accessibility of GAI to streamline tasks is ever-present. With the right knowledge and discipline, directors and managers can appropriately engage with GAI to make protocol more efficient, creative, and tailored to their members. Despite all that GAI can do, only humans can build communities.