For lawyers, competence is not a static concept – it shifts as the practice of law evolves. In recent years, few forces have transformed legal practice more than technology. In fact, the Law Society of Ontario now recognizes that a duty of technological competency is embedded within counsel’s general duty of competence. Similarly, the Superior Court of Justice has recognized that both counsel and the courts have a duty of technological competency, in keeping with the “culture shift” heralded by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
For lawyers to maintain professional competence today, it is crucial to learn how to use new legal technologies, such as generative AI, in order to better serve clients and keep pace with how the practice of law is evolving.
The Duty of Technological Competence Is Professionally Regulated
The duty of technological competency is now expressly included in the commentary addressing competence in the rules governing lawyers’ professional conduct across Canada, including Ontario. The concept was first introduced in 2019 by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada through an amended version of the Model Code of Professional Conduct. Approximately three years later, the Law Society of Ontario amended the Rules of Professional Conduct to discuss the duty of technological competence in the commentary to rule 3.1-2 Competence.
The duty of technological competency requires lawyers to understand and be able to use technology relevant to their practice. In addition to understanding the benefits of new technology, it also requires counsel to understand the risks, particularly in relation to confidentiality and data protection. The Rules of Professional Conduct also make it clear that the required level of competence is contextual, depending on what technology is reasonably available to counsel. Availability is assessed using several factors, including the lawyer’s practice area, geographic location, and client needs.
The Common Law Duty of Technological Competence in Ontario
Before the duty of technological competence was incorporated into the Rules of Professional Conduct in Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice held that counsel owes a duty of technological competence. This duty was articulated by Justice Myers in WORSOFF v MTCC 1168, 2021 ONSC 6493 and contextualized as part of the cultural shift called for by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, which prioritizes efficiency, proportionality, and access to justice.
In WORSOFF, the court considered whether examinations for discovery should proceed in person or by videoconference. In the court’s reasons, Justice Myers highlighted how the use of technology could enhance access to justice, reducing litigants’ costs with respect to attending examinations in person, increasing convenience, and improving access to justice for litigants. In fact, Justice Myers observed that “[v]irtual proceedings have proven to be one of the first significant enhancements in access to justice since Hryniak was decided in 2014.”
While Justice Myers did not go into depth describing the duty of technological competence, he offered a very useful direction – “[w]ith the current pace of change, everyone has to keep learning technology” – both counsel and the court alike, as “[t]echnological change affects everyone.”
The Duty of Technological Competence and Generative AI
Since its articulation, the duty of technological competence has continued to evolve in response to new technological developments. Today, the evolution of the practice of law and competence centres on the use of generative artificial intelligence in legal practice, as demonstrated by the White Paper issued by the LSO in April of 2024 on the use of generative AI and the recent expansion of the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Directions to address The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Court Proceedings.
It is not yet clear whether familiarity with generative AI is technically required to satisfy counsel’s duty of technological competence. However, should lawyers choose to utilize generative AI, it is clear that they are required to understand how to use it and be aware of the risks that accompany its use. For example, generative AI is known for hallucinating and producing inaccurate or fabricated information, as noted last year in Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766.
Since the risks associated with generative AI can be actively managed by carefully monitoring its output, they should not deter counsel from exploring how this technology may enhance their practice. Notwithstanding the risks, generative AI may represent one of the most significant shifts in legal practice since the adoption of virtual proceedings. Its potential to improve lawyers’ efficiency – whether in research, document review, or client communication – is substantial.
Practical Steps for Achieving Technological Competence
Now that the duty of competence encompasses technological competence, lawyers ought to take deliberate steps on an ongoing basis to maintain their competence. The Law Society of Alberta has identified a number of practical measures that can be used to achieve competence with respect to generative AI, including:
- Staying informed: Regularly engaging with developments in legal technology through continuing education and professional resources.
- Evaluating AI tools carefully: Using reputable AI platforms and assessing their reliability, accuracy, and security.
- Implementing security measures: Utilizing safeguards to ensure that client information remains secure and privileged.
- Monitoring AI outputs: Treating AI-generated content as a starting point – not a final product – and reviewing it carefully.
- Maintaining transparency: Being open with clients about how technology is being used in their matters.
- Seeking guidance: Collaborating with colleagues, IT professionals, and experts where needed.
The LSO has also developed resources to assist lawyers with their technological competence, including a Technology Resource Centre and a Practice Management Guideline on Technology.
There are also more hands-on approaches available for cultivating technological competence with respect to generative AI. For example, counsel could consult CNSL.ai, a platform developed by Hull & Hull LLP, which specializes in providing AI training, advice and support to law firms. As noted in our December 2025 issue of The Probater, CNSL.ai “exists to teach lawyers how to effectively and safely get the most out of AI tools within their practice.”
As technology continues to reshape the practice of law, technological competence is no longer optional—it is integral to effective, ethical legal practice. Lawyers who proactively engage with emerging tools, including generative AI, will be better positioned to meet their professional obligations and keep pace with ongoing changes to the practice of law.
Thank you for reading, and have a great rest of your day!