ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LEGAL PRACTICE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS IN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES (2023–2026)

Kateryna Klymenko

doi:10.69635/ciai.2026.47

Authors

Kateryna Klymenko LLM Candidate, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, Licensed Attorney (Ukraine, 2009), Sarasota, Florida / Chicago, Illinois, USA Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5227-2329

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69635/ciai.2026.47

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Legal Regulation, Attorney Competence, ABA Model Rules, EU AI Act, Attorney-Client Privilege, LegalTech, Comparative Law, Ukraine, United States, Mediation, Generative AI

Abstract

Purpose: This article undertakes a systematic comparative analysis of artificial intelligence regulation in legal practice across two jurisdictions — Ukraine and the United States — during the period 2023–2026. The study examines how each legal system has responded to the integration of generative AI into attorney practice, with particular attention to professional ethics obligations, judicial precedent, executive action, and harmonization trajectories.

Methodology: The study employs comparative legal analysis, doctrinal examination of primary sources (legislation, professional conduct rules, formal ethics opinions), case law review, and systematic analysis of regulatory instruments across both legal systems and EU law.

Findings: Neither jurisdiction has enacted comprehensive AI-specific legislation for legal professionals as of 2025. The United States has developed more specific professional standards through ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) and a body of judicial precedent anchored by Mata v. Avianca (2023). The Executive Order of June 2, 2026, introduced a voluntary federal AI oversight mechanism while affirming the administration's preference for industry self-regulation. Ukraine is pursuing a bottom-up regulatory approach aligned with EU AI Act obligations. A shared regulatory gap in both systems concerns AI in mediation and ADR.

Conclusions: Both systems rely on general professional ethics principles as their primary regulatory instruments. They diverge significantly in the specificity of guidance, existence of judicial precedent, and regulatory harmonization trajectory. The article formulates concrete recommendations for NAUB, Ukrainian legislators, and US bar associations.

References

American Bar Association. (2024, July 29). Formal Opinion 512: Generative artificial intelligence tools. Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.

American Bar Association. (2023). Model rules of professional conduct (2023 ed.). ABA Publishing.

Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2020, December 2). On approval of the Concept for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine (Resolution No. 1556-r).

Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, SB 24-205, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701 et seq. (2024).

Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, CETS No. 225.

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe. (2023). Recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession. CCBE.

Curlin, J. (2025). ChatGPT didn’t write this . . . or did it? The emergence of generative AI in the legal field and lessons from Mata v. Avianca. Arkansas Law Review, 78, 130–178.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024, July 12). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2016, April 27). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119.

Executive Order No. 14,110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75,191 (October 30, 2023) (revoked January 20, 2025).

Executive Order, Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security, 91 Fed. Reg. 2026-11415 (June 5, 2026). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/

Florida Bar Association. (2024). Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 24-1.

Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law: Novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar.

Illinois Supreme Court. (2025, January 1). Policy on artificial intelligence in the Illinois courts.

International Bar Association, & Center for AI and Digital Policy. (2024, September). The future is now: Artificial intelligence and the legal profession. https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is+now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report

Katsh, E., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital justice: Technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford University Press.

Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., Gao, S., & Arredondo, P. (2024). GPT-4 passes the bar exam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 382(2270), Article 20230254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2023.0254

Kostenko, O. (2025). Digital jurisdiction: Model [Tsyfrova yurysdyktsiia: model]. Informatsiia i pravo [Information and Law], 4(55). https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2025.4(55).346297

Kostenko, O. (Ed.). (2026). Artificial intelligence, modern technologies and law in Ukraine [Shtuchnyi intelekt, suchasni tekhnolohii ta pravo v Ukraini] [Electronic monograph]. State Scientific Institution Institute of Information, Security and Law of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine; Feniks. https://ippi.org.ua/shtuchnii-intelekt-suchasni-tekhnologii-ta-pravo-v-ukraini

Law of Ukraine No. 5076-VI, On the Bar and Legal Practice, Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 2013(27), Art. 282 (July 5, 2012).

Law of Ukraine No. 1875-IX, On Mediation, Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 2022(7), Art. 52 (November 16, 2021).

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2023). AI regulation roadmap: A bottom-up approach. https://thedigital.gov.ua

Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2024, June). White paper on artificial intelligence regulation in Ukraine.

Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2024, December). Voluntary code of conduct on the ethical and responsible use of AI.

National Association of Ukrainian Bars. (2017). Rules of legal ethics (as amended 2019). NAUB.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023, January). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce.

New York State Bar Association. (2024, April 6). Report and recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence.

Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. January 30, 2024).

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.

Pasquale, F. (2020). New laws of robotics: Defending human expertise in the age of AI. Harvard University Press.

Remus, D., & Levy, F. (2017). Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30, 501–558.

Surden, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35, 1305–1337.

Susskind, R. (2023). Tomorrow’s lawyers: An introduction to your future (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Zeleznikow, J. (2017). Can artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in courts? International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 30–45.