Open model vs closed model, and why Oregon's opinion cares

1 · Learn the move · Comparison matrix

The bar opinions draw a line the vendors do not advertise. A tool whose vendor can see, keep or learn from what you type is a third party in the Rule 1.6 sense; a tool running where only your firm can see the data is a different question [S]. The opinions use different words for it (open and closed, self-learning and not, public and private) and the useful matrix has the same four columns whichever words you use: WHO CAN SEE IT (the vendor's staff, a reviewer, nobody outside the firm), IS IT RETAINED (and for how long), IS IT TRAINED ON (by default, by opt-out, never), and WHAT THE TERMS SAY VERSUS WHAT THE OPINION REQUIRES. The last column is the point of the lesson. A vendor's no-training default does not satisfy the lawyer's duty by itself; the opinions put the duty on the lawyer to understand the tool and, for some uses, to get the client's informed consent, and a statute now on the books in one state adds disclosure requirements on top [S]. The model builds the matrix from terms you paste and the opinion you paste. It compares the two. It never fills a cell from memory, and it never writes 'compliant' in the last column.

Build a comparison matrix for the tools I name, from the terms I paste for each: tool | plan | WHO CAN SEE IT (quoted) | RETAINED (quoted) | TRAINED ON (quoted) | WHAT THE OPINION REQUIRES THAT THE TERMS DO NOT ADDRESS. For the last column use only the opinion I paste. Any cell the terms do not answer reads [NOT IN THE TERMS]. Never fill a cell from memory, never rank the tools, never write safe, compliant or approved. Terms: [paste]. Opinion: [paste]