Can Lawyers Use AI in Court? State-by-State Rules

The widespread availability of artificial intelligence technologies presents both opportunities and challenges for lawyers.

Generative AI tools hold the potential to make legal research, drafting, and other tasks more efficient in the hands of attorneys who understand how these tools work and use them responsibly. At the same time, the use of AI technology in the legal profession can have serious pitfalls, from unauthorized handling of client data to the hallucination of nonexistent cases and statutes.

These issues can result in consequences such as court sanctions, ethics complaints, and malpractice lawsuits. For guidance on the ethical use of AI in legal services, speak with a lawyer experienced in legal technology issues.

Guidance From the American Bar Association on the Ethical Use of AI

There are some open questions about how attorneys can use artificial intelligence in the practice of law, and more questions are likely to arise as these technologies evolve.

Nevertheless, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility has quickly become the most influential source of guidance in this area. Its Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools spells out how the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct may be applied to scenarios involving the use of artificial intelligence. Topics include:

Competent Representation

Attorneys should gain an understanding of how generative AI tools work — including how they manage inputs, how they generate outputs, and the risk of error associated with using them — before using them.

Attorneys should not rely solely on AI tools, without independent verification, to provide legal advice or representation.

Client Confidentiality

Attorneys should not input confidential client information into any AI system without understanding the risks of that information being shared outside the firm and obtaining informed consent from the client.

Machine learning tools, in particular, should be approached with caution given that they generally retain inputs and use them to generate future outputs.

Client Communication

Attorneys should disclose their use of AI tools to clients if asked, if necessary to obtain informed consent, or if it’s otherwise important for the client to know how their case is being handled.

Candor Toward the Tribunal

Attorneys should ensure that any generative AI outputs they incorporate into documents docketed with the court do not contain false or misleading statements. This includes citations to nonexistent statutes or case law.

Attorneys must also comply with each court’s requirements regarding disclosure of AI use.

Supervisory Responsibilities

Attorneys who supervise other lawyers or who delegate tasks to lawyers outside their own firm should set clear policies on AI use and monitor compliance with those policies.

Attorney’s Fees

Attorneys who charge hourly fees should bill clients only for those hours spent performing the legal work. So, if generative AI makes them more efficient, they may need to charge for fewer hours than they previously would have for completing the same work.

State Rules and Guidelines for Use of AI by Lawyers

While the ABA’s guidance is extremely influential, it is ultimately up to the courts of each state to issue guidance and discipline lawyers who fail to follow that guidance in state-court matters.

Some state court systems delegate the making of ethical rules and guidelines to a mandatory, integrated bar association. In others, it is the courts themselves that make the rules.

Given the rapid growth of the artificial intelligence industry since the public launch of the ChatGPT AI chatbot in 2022, many states have not yet had an opportunity to issue formal rules or advisory opinions on AI usage by lawyers. However, a number of states have, at minimum, issued working-group or committee reports meant to provide preliminary guidance.

State-by-State Guidelines for the Use of AI in Legal Practice

What follows is a list of ethics advisory opinions, best practices, guidelines, reports, and recommendations issued by state Supreme Courts, state Bar Associations (both integrated and voluntary), and state Attorneys General.

A majority of these publications are not formally binding but can generally be relied upon by lawyers practicing in these states.

State	Title of AI Legal Ethics Guidance
Arizona	Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges
California	Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
District of Columbia	Attorneys’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters
Florida	Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1
Kentucky	E-457: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
Massachusetts	Attorney General Advisory on the Application of the Commonwealth’s Consumer Protection, Civil Rights, and Data Privacy Laws to Artificial Intelligence
Minnesota	State Bar Association Working Group on AI: Implications of Large Language Models on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Access to Justice
Mississippi	Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar
Missouri	Lawyer’s Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
New Jersey	Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers
New Mexico	Generative Artificial Intelligence Use
New York	Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence
North Carolina	Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice
Oregon	Artificial Intelligence Tools
Pennsylvania	Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Texas	Texas Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 705
Vermont	Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts First Annual Report
West Virginia	Artificial Intelligence

Courts Begin To Weigh in on AI Ethical and Disciplinary Issues

Ultimately, the best guidance for lawyers will be court decisions in disciplinary matters brought against attorneys, court-ordered sanctions, and professional malpractice cases.

So far, the courts have weighed in most heavily in cases where attorneys have been sanctioned for filing pleadings including AI-generated content that references nonexistent cases. Recent examples covered in the news media include a Utah Court of Appeals case, a District Court of New Jersey case, and a series of state and federal cases in which judges came up with novel penalties in order to better deter lawyers from engaging in this sort of conduct.

Court rulings on other issues, such as unauthorized disclosure of client confidential information to AI models, have been less common, likely because it may take longer for clients to discover these issues and seek compensation through malpractice actions.

Ultimately it is each attorney’s responsibility to familiarize themselves with the ABA’s guidance, as well as any state-specific guidance or court decisions applicable to their jurisdiction, before using artificial intelligence tools in legal practice. Failure to do so may bring harm to clients and serious consequences for the attorney or attorneys involved.

Find Legal Help

For legal advice on the ethical implications of AI use, reach out to a local attorney with experience in legal technology issues.