If your trademark lawyer uses AI, who’s responsible when it gets something wrong? It’s a fair question, and it’s an easy one to forget until a mistake shows up in something with your name on it. On November 6, we signed The Higher Bar, a public pledge on how lawyers and legal technology companies use artificial intelligence, and we want to explain what that means for you in plain English.
The Higher Bar was convened by Best Era, a law firm consulting company based in West Hartford, Connecticut. Signing it is voluntary, so it doesn’t create a legal obligation or change any rule of professional conduct. It puts our commitments in writing, where anyone can read them and hold us to them.
Below, you’ll find what we committed to, why those commitments matter when you’re protecting a brand, and a short list of questions you can ask any lawyer or filing service about AI, including us.
What The Higher Bar is and isn’t
The Higher Bar is a public pledge. Firms and legal technology companies that sign it agree to a set of principles for how they use AI, and the full pledge is on Best Era’s website. We signed because a lot of people are curious, and understandably a little cautious, about what happens when legal work and AI mix.
It isn’t a government program, and it doesn’t replace the professional rules every lawyer already follows. It also isn’t a guarantee of results, since a pledge is only as good as the follow-through. That’s exactly why we’re putting ours in public.
What we committed to
By signing, we committed to fourteen principles. These are the ones we think matter most to the people we work with:
- A lawyer is responsible for every use of AI, and a person checks every AI output before it leaves the firm.
- We won’t use AI to harass, intimidate, or bury anyone in filings.
- We won’t file evidence we can’t verify is real.
- We’ll protect client data and treat security as ongoing work.
- We’ll use AI to make our team better at their work, not to replace them.
- We’ll be honest about what AI can and can’t do, and we’ll keep our own voice in everything we send.
- We’ll never sell or license client files or case data to train anyone’s AI.
“Our clients trust us with the name their business is built on,” said Joey Vitale, trademark attorney and founder of Indie Law. “Signing The Higher Bar is a public way of saying that no matter what tools we use, a lawyer is responsible for the work and our clients’ information stays protected.” That’s the idea in a nutshell: the tools can change, but the accountability doesn’t.
Why this matters when you’re protecting a brand
Trademark work is full of details where a small mistake can cost you time and money, like the goods and services listed in an application, the search for similar names, and the proof of use you send to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Those details are signed off on your behalf, so it matters who checked them and how. AI tools can draft quickly, but they can also sound confident while being wrong, which is exactly why a person needs to review the work.
Proof of use is a good example. The USPTO calls this a specimen, and it doesn’t accept mockups or digitally altered images that don’t show actual use in commerce, so an AI-generated mockup of your packaging can’t stand in for the real thing. That’s one reason our commitment never to file evidence we can’t verify is real matters, and our guide to trademark specimen refusals explains what the USPTO actually looks for.
Privacy matters too. Before you file, your brand name, launch plans, and product ideas are confidential business information, and you should know where they go when someone else handles them. Parts of a trademark application become public once it’s filed, but your launch plans and the rest of what you share with your lawyer shouldn’t be, which is why our promise never to sell or license client files to train anyone’s AI is worth asking every lawyer or service about.
What this doesn’t change
Signing a pledge doesn’t change how trademark law works. We still can’t speed up the USPTO, and no lawyer can guarantee that an application will register, whether or not AI is involved. What a pledge can do is tell you how a firm will behave while it does the work.
It also doesn’t mean AI is off-limits. Used carefully, tools can help lawyers work faster and communicate more clearly, as long as people stay responsible for the result. The point is to keep the order clear: the lawyer decides, the lawyer checks, and the lawyer answers for it.
What to do now
You don’t have to be a technology expert to ask good questions. These five will tell you a lot about how any lawyer or filing service handles AI, and the answers should be easy to give.
- Ask who reviews AI-assisted work. You want to hear that a lawyer checks anything AI touches before it reaches you or the USPTO.
- Ask what happens to your files. Find out whether your documents or brand details are ever used to train AI tools, and try to get the answer in writing.
- Ask how proof of use is handled. Make sure mockups or AI-generated images won’t be submitted as real specimens.
- Ask who is accountable for your file. You should be able to name the person responsible, not just the tool.
- Read the pledge yourself. The full text is on Best Era’s website, so you can see exactly what firms agreed to.
If a lawyer or service can’t answer these clearly, that tells you something worth knowing before you hand over your brand.
Wondering how a trademark lawyer will handle your filing?
We focus exclusively on trademarks, with flat fees and no surprise invoices. We’ve filed 2,000+ trademark applications with a 99.7% success rate, and while we can’t guarantee any outcome, we’re happy to answer your questions about AI, privacy, or anything else about how we work. Book a free consultation and ask us whatever you’d like.
Sources: Best Era, “The Higher Bar,” accessed Nov. 11, 2026; eCFR, “37 CFR § 2.56, Specimens,” accessed Nov. 11, 2026.
The choice of a trademark lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Past results do not serve as a guarantee of future results. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation.