Geoff CuddLast updated: October 28, 2026
Disclosure: some links on this page are affiliate links. If you sign up through one, we earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
This isn’t legal advice, including on your own ethics duties. Have ethics counsel or your state bar’s ethics hotline review any data deal before you sign.
A law firm sells its data to AI by licensing files from closed matters, such as pleadings, discovery productions, contracts and deal documents, to a buyer like Mercor. The ethics question comes first: ABA Model Rule 1.6 bars revealing information relating to a client’s representation without the client’s informed consent.
In practice that leaves two routes. You get client consent, or you license only material that’s either fully anonymized or never contained client information, such as your own templates and internal guides. Mercor pays law firms $50,000 to $1.2 million on those terms.
For the full process across every industry, start with our guide to how to sell your company’s data to AI companies.
Key takeaways
- ABA Model Rule 1.6 covers all information relating to a representation, “whatever its source,” not only privileged material.
- Public court filings are still covered. ABA Formal Opinion 480 says information in a public record stays confidential under Rule 1.6.
- Mercor’s law firm listing pays $50,000 to $1.2 million and requires “client consent, or documents that can be fully anonymized.”
- Your own templates, practice guides and internal training material are the safest data to license.
- Rule 1.9(c) carries the duty over to former clients, so closed matters need the same care as open ones.
Can a law firm ethically sell its data to AI companies?
Rule 1.6(a) says a lawyer “shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent,” with narrow exceptions that don’t cover a data sale. The ABA’s comment to the rule says it covers information “whatever its source.”
Rule 1.6(c) adds a security duty. Lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, client information, which reaches whoever processes and stores the files.
The closest thing to an anonymization exception is Comment 4. It allows discussing a matter as a hypothetical “so long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the listener will be able to ascertain the identity of the client or the situation involved.” A full matter file with hundreds of documents is a hard place to meet that test.
The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) points the same way. It says lawyers need a client’s informed consent before putting confidential information into an AI tool that learns from it, and that boilerplate in an engagement letter isn’t enough.
Your state’s version of Rule 1.6 is the one that binds you, and ABA opinions aren’t binding. Check your state bar’s rules and ethics opinions, or call its ethics hotline, before you scope a deal.
What legal data do AI companies buy?
Mercor’s law firm listing, read October 28, 2026, splits it up like this:
| Data | Mercor’s view | Ethics risk |
|---|---|---|
| Pleadings, filings, discovery productions | Core of the license | High. Client information, and often the other side’s documents. |
| Contracts and deal documents | Core of the license | High. Deal terms identify the parties. |
| Matter correspondence | Core of the license | Highest. Often privileged. |
| Custodial email, chat, e-discovery exports | Adds to what you earn | High. Third parties’ personal information. |
| Contract repositories, data rooms | Adds to what you earn | High |
| Firm templates, practice guides, training material | Not listed | Low, if they contain no client details |
Mercor works with exports from Relativity, Everlaw, iManage, NetDocuments and Clio. It wants 5 or more years of closed matters, matters with 500 or more documents, and firms of 5 to 300 attorneys and staff, with the US preferred.
It rules out active matters, “privileged material clients won’t release” and single filings without the rest of the file.
micro1 lists legal and contracts work among the operations it buys data on, on its data partnerships page, for companies with 30 or more full-time staff. You can apply to micro1 here.
Not every buyer takes law firm files. Endless Data says it never licenses privileged client matter content, and the broker Korra says client files held by law firms usually don’t qualify. Our list of companies that buy business data for AI has each buyer’s rules.
Do you need client consent to sell law firm data?
Mercor asks every law firm one question that settles most of this: “Would clients accept anonymized licensing?” If you can’t answer for a client, you don’t have consent yet.
Former clients count too. ABA Model Rule 1.9(c) says a lawyer whose firm formerly represented a client can’t “reveal information relating to the representation” except as the rules would allow for a current client. Closing the matter doesn’t release the file.
Getting consent from a long list of former clients is slow, and some won’t answer. Plan to license fewer matters with clear consent rather than many matters without it.
Write any consent request in plain language. Name the buyer type, what’s in the files, how they’ll be anonymized, whether the license is exclusive and how long it runs. Formal Opinion 512 is a reminder that a general clause in an old engagement letter won’t do.
Is public court filing data different from private work product?
Opinion 480 was written about lawyers blogging and posting about cases, and the ABA Journal’s coverage sums up its point. Rule 1.6 has no exception for information that’s already public.
Some states treat public information differently, and Opinion 480 has critics. It’s still the safe assumption until your state bar says otherwise.
Private work product carries more risk on top of that. Research memos, drafts and internal strategy notes can be privileged as well as confidential, and licensing them can raise waiver questions.
How do you redact privileged and client-identifying information?
Names alone aren’t enough. A case caption, a docket number, an unusual fact pattern or a deal size can identify a client after every name is gone.
| Item | What to do |
|---|---|
| Attorney-client communications | Exclude, unless the client consents in writing |
| Documents produced under a protective order | Exclude. Many orders limit use to the case and require return or destruction afterward. |
| Party, witness and employee names | Replace with consistent placeholders |
| Case numbers, courts, judges, dates | Remove or generalize |
| Deal values, prices, settlement amounts | Remove or round into ranges |
| Social Security, account and medical details in exhibits | Remove, or exclude the exhibit |
| Distinctive facts | Exclude the matter if the facts alone identify it |
Discovery productions need extra care because they’re full of the other side’s documents and third parties’ email. Read the protective order and any confidentiality stipulation for each matter before it goes on the list.
Mercor says it signs an NDA, runs the export and removes or protects personal information. Rule 1.6(c) still puts the duty on you, so a lawyer should check a sample of the output before delivery.
Our post on whether selling company data to AI is safe covers de-identification methods across industries.
Who at the firm has to approve a data deal?
- Managing partner or executive committee: signs the license and owns the business decision.
- Ethics partner or general counsel: checks Rule 1.6, Rule 1.9, privilege and protective orders matter by matter.
- Relationship partners: ask their clients for consent, and flag clients who’d object.
- IT or security lead: controls the export and checks the buyer’s security terms.
- Malpractice carrier: worth a call, since a disclosure claim lands on your policy.
ABA Model Rule 5.1 requires partners and lawyers with managerial authority to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm’s lawyers follow the rules. A data deal approved by one partner without the others’ knowledge is the kind of thing that rule exists for.
What are the steps for a law firm, start to finish?
- Start with what the firm owns outright. Templates, practice guides, checklists and training material with no client details carry the least risk.
- List closed matters. Note the document count, practice area and the system that holds each, such as iManage or Relativity.
- Screen each matter. Mark privilege, protective orders, third-party data and distinctive facts. Drop the matters that fail.
- Ask clients for informed consent. Use a plain-language letter, and keep the signed replies.
- Apply to a buyer. Mercor’s law firm listing has an apply link and scopes matters on a call.
- Have ethics counsel review the license. Our AI data licensing agreement checklist lists the clauses to check, including a ban on re-identification.
- Check a sample before delivery. A lawyer should read anonymized files from several matters and try to identify the client.
- Deliver and get paid. Mercor says payment typically lands two to four weeks after signing.
To judge an offer, our guide to how much company data is worth to AI compares published payouts by industry. Law firms’ $1.2 million top end is the third-highest on Mercor’s table, behind manufacturing ($1.5 million) and hardware engineering ($1.3 million).
Mercor also pays an $85,000 referral fee for law firms, the highest on its table as of October 28, 2026. That’s paid to someone who refers a firm, not to the firm.
Common mistakes when selling law firm data to AI
The most common mistake is treating anonymization as a substitute for client consent. These are the others:
- Assuming public court filings are free to license
- Forgetting that former clients are protected by Rule 1.9(c)
- Licensing discovery productions without reading the protective order
- Relying on a boilerplate AI clause in old engagement letters
- Removing names but leaving case numbers, dates and deal values
- Letting one partner sign without the ethics partner or management committee
- Reading Mercor’s $85,000 referral fee as what the firm gets paid
Frequently asked questions
Can a law firm sell its data to AI companies?
Yes, but only with each affected client’s informed consent, or for material that contains no client information or is anonymized so nobody could identify the client. ABA Model Rule 1.6 bars revealing client information otherwise.
How much do AI companies pay law firms for data?
Mercor’s law firm listing pays $50,000 to $1.2 million, depending on matter size and completeness. It wants 5 or more years of closed matters and matters with 500 or more documents.
Can a law firm license public court filings to AI?
Not freely. ABA Formal Opinion 480 says information in a public record is still protected by Rule 1.6, so filings from a client’s case need the same consent or anonymization as private files.
Do former clients have to consent?
Yes. ABA Model Rule 1.9(c) bars revealing information relating to a former client’s representation except as the rules would allow for a current client.
What legal data is safest to sell to AI?
Firm-owned material with no client details, such as contract templates, practice guides, checklists and training material. Client matter files carry the most risk.
Who needs to approve a law firm data deal?
The managing partner or executive committee, the firm’s ethics partner or general counsel, the relationship partner for each client whose files are included, and the IT or security lead.
