101PD SAMPLEPart I — The Duties, Applied to AI and Legal Technology §1 The Frame — No New Rules, Every Old One California has not written an AI rulebook for lawyers, and the course's first teaching is that none was needed: every question generative AI raises in practice is answered by a duty the profession already owns, applied with technological literacy. Competence (Rule 1.1) reaches the benefits and risks of the technology the practice uses — the duty behind the MCLE technology hour this course maps. Confidentiality (section 6068(e) and Rule 1.6, California's strict version) governs what client information may touch which systems. Supervision (Rules 5.1 through 5.3) makes AI-assisted work reviewable work, whoever — or whatever — drafted it. Candor (the tribunal rules) prices fabricated authority, however generated. The fee rules govern billing when the machine compresses the hours. And the communication duty decides what clients are told. The State Bar's practical guidance on generative AI — issued in initial form in late 2023 and treated here at the framework level with this catalog's standing currency flags — organizes itself around exactly these duties, and the courts' own rule (10.430, effective December 15, 2025, requiring written AI policies in the courts that use it) confirms the direction: the profession's institutions are governing the technology with the instruments they already had. The course's method follows: each section takes one duty, states its AI application concretely, and ends with the artifact — because in this catalog, a duty without a document is a sentiment, and the Part II program assembles the documents into the office's standing system. §2 Competence — Verification as the Load-Bearing Skill The technology-competence duty has a generative-AI center of gravity: verification. The failure mode the profession has already litigated: fabricated citations — the sanctions cases, now numerous across jurisdictions, in which filings contained nonexistent authority produced by a model and signed by a lawyer who never checked; the sanctions, referrals, and publicity that followed established the era's first bright line, and its doctrinal basis is old — the certification a signature makes, the candor rules, and competence itself. The verification discipline, stated as office law: no AI-generated authority is cited until independently confirmed in a primary source; no AI-generated factual assertion enters a filing until verified against the record; no AI summary of a document substitutes for reading the document where the matter turns on it — the model is a drafting assistant with unlimited confidence and no oath, and the lawyer's oath is the difference. The affirmative competence: knowing what the tools do well (first drafts, reorganization, issue-spotting breadth, discovery triage, translation support subject to §5's limits) and badly (citations, quotation fidelity, arithmetic at the edges, recent law — every model's training has a date, which is this catalog's verify-doctrine wearing silicon); matching the tool to the task the way §2's ethics-course original matches lawyer to matter — acquire the skill, associate the specialist, or decline. And the currency habit: the tools change monthly; the office's approved-tool