NACDL frames AI adoption as a matter of professional parity. The organization argues that criminal defense lawyers risk falling short of constitutional and ethical standards if they fail to adopt tools already available to prosecutors. The paper acknowledges real barriers—cost, training requirements, and privacy concerns—and identifies specific risks including confidentiality breaches, accuracy failures, and bias. It stops short of mandating AI use but positions responsible adoption as part of the duty of competence.
Defense counsel should treat this as a signal that AI adoption is moving from optional to expected. As courts and bar associations tighten scrutiny of AI errors in litigation, NACDL's framing creates a countervailing pressure: failing to use AI tools may itself become an ethics problem. Attorneys should review the model AI-use policy included in the report's appendix and begin assessing their own practices against the ABA Model Rules framework NACDL has outlined. The tension between these two risks—AI mistakes and AI avoidance—will likely shape ethics guidance and malpractice exposure for years.