Rule 1.5 Does Not Equate Reduced Time With Proportionally Reduced Fees: Virginia's Opinion on Lawyers' Fees and Generative AI, November 2025

On November 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, "Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence," "effective immediately." The Virginia State Bar had filed a petition asking the court to consider it on July 24, 2025. The opinion is about lawyers' fees. It discusses, in its words, "the ethical bounds and considerations when a lawyer is able to produce work dramatically more efficiently than in the past using generative AI." Its principles, it says, "may be equally applicable to a lawyer's use of other technological tools that result in comparable productivity improvements."

Time-based billing, such as hourly fees, "can only be based on the actual time spent on a task," the opinion says, while lawyers "increasingly seek guidance on the ethical parameters for non-hourly fee structures." Hours billed are hours worked.

The Rule and Its Factors

The applicable rule of professional conduct is Rule 1.5, on fees. "A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable," it says, and it lists the factors for judging that, among them the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions, the skill needed to do the work properly, the amount involved and the results obtained, and the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer. A second part, Rule 1.5(b), says the fee "shall be adequately explained to the client."

When those factors are applied to value-based billing, the opinion says, the tension lies between the time and labor required and "the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly," both of them in Rule 1.5(a)(1). And it says the rule applies "the same regardless of the reason for increased efficiency in legal work."

The Factors, in the AI Context

Generative AI can dramatically reduce the time and labor required for certain tasks, the opinion says, such as drafting routine documents, conducting preliminary research or analyzing large volumes of data. But "it would not be reasonable to conclude that a lawyer is ethically required to reduce or limit the fee based solely on that factor." The skill required "might actually increase, as effective AI use could require specialized knowledge to prompt, verify, supplement, and integrate AI outputs into competent legal work product."

The lawyer's judgment in deciding when and how to use AI tools, and the expertise needed to "critically evaluate AI-generated content," the opinion says, "represent valuable services for which the lawyer reasonably can be compensated." The difficulty, it says, now includes properly configuring AI systems to address complex legal questions, understanding the limitations of current tools, and "maintaining sufficient domain expertise to identify AI hallucinations or errors." On results, it says that if AI helps a lawyer reach superior results more efficiently, the client benefits from the better outcome and "potentially reduced total costs compared to a lawyer using traditional methods."

Not Per Se Unreasonable

"It is not per se unreasonable for a lawyer to charge the same non-hourly fee for work done with the assistance of AI as work done without the use of AI," the opinion says. Every fee must still be reasonable on all the factors of Rule 1.5(a), it says, but "the time spent on a task or the use of certain research or drafting tools should not be read as the preeminent or determinative factor in that analysis."

"Contrary views fail to appreciate the value of advancing technology and the reaction of the legal markets to that technology," it says. Over time, the market rate "might drop based on dramatic improvements in efficiency," but Rule 1.5 "should not require the lawyer to surrender any benefit from the efficiency gains if clients continue to receive value from the lawyer's output."

Explained to the Client

Separate from reasonableness, the opinion says, a lawyer's fee must also be adequately explained to the client under Rule 1.5(b). Where a fee is "primarily based on the lawyer's skills and the value of the anticipated final product," rather than on time spent or reaching a fixed endpoint of a proceeding, the lawyer "must ensure that the basis for that fee is adequately explained to the client." That could be particularly important, the opinion says, if the time spent is substantially reduced by the tool, "such that the client may need additional explanation of why the lawyer's experience, technical skills, or other efficiencies contribute to the value of the services and determination of the fee."

The opinion moves the weight of a non-hourly fee from hours toward judgment. The explanation Rule 1.5(b) asks for is where that judgment has to show: when the hours are few, what did the lawyer verify, and what did the lawyer's expertise catch?