A question I hear more frequently as lawyers begin experimenting with generative AI is a simple one: If technology allows me to do the work faster, can I still charge a reasonable fee?

A few weeks ago, on Nov. 24, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved a new ethics opinion that squarely addresses that question. While the opinion applies only to Virginia lawyers, it is a timely and thoughtful discussion of how long-standing fee principles apply when lawyers use productivity-enhancing tools, like generative AI.

Virginia’s opinion makes one point clear: Reduced time does not automatically mean reduced value. When lawyers use AI to work more efficiently, the ethical analysis does not stop at the clock. Skill, judgment, experience, results obtained and the ability to properly supervise and verify AI output all remain part of what clients are paying for.

Oklahoma has not issued an ethics opinion specifically addressing AI and fees. However, Oklahoma Rule 1.5 already requires that fees be reasonable and adequately explained, considering factors far broader than time alone. Those factors include the complexity of the matter, the lawyer’s experience and ability and the results achieved.

This discussion is not new. For years, I have encouraged lawyers to explore flat fees, limited scope services and other value-based billing models, particularly as technology continues to reduce the time required for most routine legal tasks. Many clients prefer predictable pricing, and many lawyers find these models better reflect how legal services are actually delivered today. I also regularly address this issue in CLE programs on AI, where efficiency gains raise important questions about transparency, communication and billing expectations.

The takeaway is not that hourly billing is obsolete, nor that AI changes our ethical rules overnight. Instead, technology is pushing lawyers to think more carefully about how they explain the value they provide and how their fee structures align with client expectations.