Barreau du Québec and AI: Professional Obligations for Quebec Lawyers in 2026

The Barreau du Québec has clarified its position on artificial intelligence use by Quebec lawyers through updated guidance that directly references the Code of Professional Conduct and Law 25 requirements. Quebec lawyers using AI tools must ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations under article 3.06.01, competence requirements under article 3.02.01, and cross-border data transfer restrictions under Law 25 section 17. The intersection of professional conduct rules and Quebec privacy law creates specific compliance obligations that differ from other Canadian jurisdictions.

Professional conduct obligations for AI use

Quebec's Code of Professional Conduct establishes clear boundaries for technology adoption in legal practice. Article 3.02.01 requires lawyers to maintain professional competence, which includes understanding the tools they deploy in client service.

The competence standard extends beyond basic functionality. Quebec lawyers must understand how their AI platforms handle confidential information, where data is processed, and what disclosure obligations exist under foreign law. This technical due diligence becomes part of the professional obligation under article 3.02.01's requirement to "maintain and update the knowledge and skills necessary for the practice of the profession."

"Professional competence in 2026 includes understanding the jurisdictional implications of your technology stack. Quebec lawyers cannot delegate this assessment to vendors while maintaining compliance with article 3.02.01 of the Code of Professional Conduct."

Article 3.05.01 addresses supervision obligations when non-lawyers access AI tools within the firm. Partners remain responsible for ensuring AI-assisted work meets professional standards, regardless of who operates the technology.

---

Confidentiality requirements and cross-border risks

Article 3.06.01 of the Code establishes absolute confidentiality for client information, stating lawyers must "preserve the secrecy of confidential information that comes to his knowledge in the practice of his profession." This creates immediate tension with AI platforms hosted in jurisdictions with mandatory disclosure laws.

The US CLOUD Act (18 U.S.C. § 2713) allows American authorities to compel data disclosure from US companies, regardless of where data is stored. Quebec lawyers using platforms owned by US entities face potential conflicts between American disclosure orders and Quebec confidentiality obligations under article 3.06.01.

Canadian-controlled platforms avoid this jurisdictional conflict entirely. Augure operates under exclusive Canadian legal authority, with no US parent company or investors that could create disclosure pathways under the CLOUD Act.

"Article 3.06.01 of Quebec's Code of Professional Conduct requires absolute confidentiality that US-hosted AI platforms cannot guarantee due to CLOUD Act disclosure obligations. Canadian sovereignty in AI platforms becomes a professional conduct necessity."

The Barreau has indicated that lawyers bear responsibility for selecting platforms that can maintain absolute confidentiality. This shifts the compliance burden from reactive breach response to proactive platform selection aligned with article 3.06.01 requirements.

---

Law 25 compliance for legal AI platforms

Law 25 section 17 restricts cross-border personal information transfers unless adequate protection exists or consent is obtained. Legal AI platforms routinely process personal information from client documents, contracts, and case files.

The Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec has not issued adequacy decisions for AI processing in the United States. This creates a compliance gap for Quebec law firms using US-hosted platforms, even with client consent under Law 25 section 17.

Section 93 of Law 25 requires Privacy Impact Assessments when AI systems process personal information with privacy risks. Legal documents inherently contain personal information requiring PIA completion before deployment.

Section 25 of Law 25 requires organizations to implement security measures proportional to the sensitivity of information processed. Legal information carries inherent sensitivity that demands enhanced protection beyond standard commercial AI deployments.

Administrative monetary penalties under Law 25 section 161 reach C$10 million or 2% of worldwide turnover for enterprises, with section 162 escalating to C$25 million or 4% for serious violations. The Barreau has indicated that professional discipline may run parallel to privacy enforcement, creating dual liability exposure.

---

Practical compliance framework for Quebec firms

Quebec law firms need systematic approaches to AI compliance that address both professional conduct and privacy obligations. The framework starts with jurisdictional assessment of proposed platforms under Law 25 section 17 transfer requirements.

Platform evaluation criteria:

• Legal domicile and corporate control structure
• Data processing locations and residency guarantees
• Foreign disclosure law exposure (CLOUD Act, national security letters)
• Security architecture meeting Law 25 section 25 standards
• Privacy impact assessment completion per Law 25 section 93

Contract review represents a common AI use case for Quebec firms. NDA analysis, due diligence document review, and compliance checking all involve processing confidential client information through AI systems subject to article 3.06.01 protections.

Augure's architecture addresses these compliance requirements through Canadian data residency, no US corporate parents, and models trained on Canadian legal contexts including Quebec civil law concepts. The platform operates exclusively under Canadian jurisdiction, eliminating CLOUD Act exposure for Quebec legal practices.

The platform's Ossington 3 model handles complex legal analysis with 256k context windows, allowing full contract review without data fragmentation across multiple API calls. This reduces the compliance surface area compared to platforms requiring document segmentation for Law 25 section 25 security purposes.

---

Professional liability and insurance considerations

Quebec lawyers face professional liability exposure when AI tools produce inadequate or incorrect legal analysis. The standard under article 3.02.01 remains unchanged: lawyers are responsible for all work product delivered to clients.

Professional liability insurance may exclude coverage for losses arising from non-compliant technology use under Law 25 or the Code of Professional Conduct. Insurers are beginning to assess AI platform compliance as part of risk evaluation for Quebec legal practices.

"Professional liability follows professional responsibility under article 3.02.01. Non-compliant AI platforms create coverage gaps that Quebec lawyers cannot afford to ignore while maintaining Law 25 and Code compliance."

The Law Society of Ontario's AI guidance emphasizes lawyer supervision of AI output. Quebec firms should expect similar expectations from the Barreau, particularly for client-facing deliverables under article 3.05.01 supervision requirements.

Documentation becomes critical for demonstrating reasonable AI supervision under article 3.05.01. Firms need audit trails showing lawyer review of AI-generated analysis, particularly for complex legal opinions or strategic recommendations.

---

Implementation roadmap for Quebec compliance

Quebec law firms should conduct AI compliance audits covering Law 25 sections 17, 25, and 93 before deploying new platforms. This assessment covers professional conduct obligations, privacy requirements, and professional liability implications.

Phase 1: Current state assessment

• Inventory existing AI tools and platforms
• Map data flows for Law 25 section 17 compliance
• Identify cross-border transfer risks under CLOUD Act
• Review professional liability coverage exclusions

Phase 2: Gap analysis and remediation

• Assess platforms against article 3.06.01 confidentiality requirements
• Complete Privacy Impact Assessments per Law 25 section 93
• Document supervision procedures under article 3.05.01
• Establish audit trail requirements for competence compliance

Phase 3: Platform migration if required

• Transition to compliant Canadian alternatives
• Implement enhanced supervision protocols per article 3.05.01
• Update professional liability coverage
• Train staff on Law 25 and Code compliance obligations

Quebec firms using non-compliant platforms should prioritize migration to Canadian alternatives. The regulatory environment under Law 25 and Code updates is tightening, and early compliance provides competitive advantage in client service.

---

The Barreau du Québec has established clear expectations for AI use that extend beyond basic professional responsibility into Law 25 privacy compliance and cross-border transfer restrictions. Quebec lawyers need platforms that satisfy both Code of Professional Conduct obligations and Law 25 requirements without compromise.

Canadian sovereignty in AI becomes a compliance necessity under article 3.06.01 and Law 25 section 17, not a preference. Quebec firms evaluating AI platforms should assess jurisdictional compliance first, functionality second. Explore compliant Canadian AI solutions at augureai.ca.