|
By June 2026, artificial intelligence had become a common tool in legal practice. Lawyers were using AI to draft documents, summarise cases, review contracts, and conduct legal research. Yet as AI's presence in the legal profession expanded, so did concerns about accuracy, confidentiality, accountability, and ethics. Responding to these challenges, the Rhode Island Supreme Court took a significant step on June 17, 2026, by issuing formal guidance on the ethical use of generative AI and amending its professional conduct rules. The move places Rhode Island among a growing number of jurisdictions seeking to ensure that technological innovation does not undermine the integrity of the justice system.
A Landmark Development
The Rhode Island Supreme Court's action was the result of nearly two years of study and consultation. In October 2024, Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell established the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts to examine how AI could affect courts, lawyers, litigants, and judicial officers.
After reviewing developments in legal technology and observing emerging ethical concerns nationwide, the court amended Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs lawyer competence. At the same time, it adopted interim guidelines explaining how lawyers and judges should responsibly use generative AI tools.
The message from the court was straightforward: AI can assist legal professionals, but it cannot replace their professional judgment or ethical responsibilities.
Competence in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Traditionally, the duty of competence required lawyers to possess the legal knowledge, skill, and preparation necessary to represent clients effectively. Rhode Island has now clarified that competence also includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with modern technology.
This does not mean attorneys must become software engineers or computer scientists. Instead, lawyers are expected to understand enough about AI systems to use them responsibly. They must recognise the capabilities of these tools, understand their limitations, and be aware of the risks associated with relying on machine-generated content.
In practical terms, a lawyer who uses AI without understanding how it functions or what errors it may produce could face ethical scrutiny.
The Continuing Duty to Verify AI Output
Perhaps the most important aspect of the new guidance is the requirement that lawyers independently review and verify all AI-generated work.
Generative AI systems can produce impressive and persuasive text. However, they are also capable of generating inaccurate information, fabricated legal authorities, or misleading analyses. These errors, commonly known as "hallucinations," may appear credible despite being entirely false.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court emphasised that responsibility for legal filings remains with the lawyer—not the technology. Before submitting any AI-assisted document, attorneys must carefully review its contents, verify legal citations, confirm factual assertions, and correct any inaccuracies.
This requirement reflects a growing concern among courts nationwide. Several attorneys in recent years have faced sanctions after submitting briefs containing fictitious cases and nonexistent legal authorities generated by AI systems. Rhode Island's guidance seeks to prevent similar incidents by reinforcing the lawyer's duty of diligence and candour toward the court.
Protecting Client Confidentiality
Confidentiality remains one of the most fundamental obligations of legal practice, and AI introduces new challenges in this area.
Many generative AI platforms process information through external servers and may retain user inputs. If lawyers enter confidential client information into such systems without understanding how the data is handled, privileged or sensitive information could be exposed.
Recognising this risk, the Rhode Island Supreme Court requires attorneys to evaluate the privacy policies, security protections, and data-retention practices of any AI tool they use. Lawyers must determine whether information is stored, who can access it, and whether it may be used for further training or processing.
The guidance makes clear that convenience cannot come at the expense of client confidentiality. Attorneys remain responsible for safeguarding privileged information regardless of the technology employed.
Ethical Billing Practices
The court also addressed an issue that is becoming increasingly important as AI improves efficiency: attorney billing.
Generative AI can significantly reduce the time required to complete legal tasks. Research that once took several hours may now take minutes. Document review and drafting can also be performed much more quickly.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that lawyers may not charge clients for time that was never actually spent. If AI enables a task to be completed in one hour rather than two, the lawyer may bill only for the hour of actual work performed.
Similarly, the costs associated with ordinary AI tools are generally considered law-office overhead rather than billable client expenses. Time spent learning how to use AI systems is also generally not chargeable to clients.
This approach seeks to balance innovation with fairness and transparency in legal fees.
Transparency with Clients
The court stopped short of requiring lawyers to disclose every instance of AI use. However, it emphasised that disclosure may become necessary in certain circumstances.
Lawyers should inform clients when AI plays a significant role in representation, when disclosure would help the client understand the legal services being provided, when the client specifically requests information about AI use, or when client information is entered into an AI system.
These principles reflect broader duties of communication and informed consent that already exist within legal ethics rules.
Responsibilities of Law Firms
The guidance recognises that ethical AI use is not solely an individual responsibility. Law firms themselves must establish systems to ensure appropriate oversight.
Partners and supervisory attorneys are expected to create AI-use policies, train lawyers and staff, implement confidentiality safeguards, and monitor compliance with ethical obligations. Firms that fail to adopt adequate controls may face disciplinary risks, malpractice exposure, and reputational harm.
As AI becomes more deeply integrated into legal practice, institutional governance will likely become as important as individual competence.
Guidance for Judges
The Rhode Island Supreme Court also issued separate recommendations for judges and judicial officers.
Judges may use AI tools for administrative tasks, legal research, reviewing evidence, summarising testimony, or drafting preliminary materials. However, AI must never replace a judge's independent analysis and decision-making.
The judiciary's legitimacy depends upon impartial human judgment. The court therefore emphasised that AI should serve only as an aid rather than a substitute for judicial reasoning.
Part of a National Movement
Rhode Island's action reflects a broader national trend. States such as California, Florida, and New York have already adopted or proposed rules addressing AI-related ethical concerns. Across the country, bar associations and courts are increasingly focusing on issues of competence, confidentiality, supervision, and accuracy.
The common theme is clear: while AI can improve efficiency and expand access to legal services, professional responsibility remains firmly rooted in human accountability.
Conclusion
The Rhode Island Supreme Court's June 2026 guidance represents an important step in adapting legal ethics to the realities of modern technology. Rather than resisting innovation, the court has embraced a balanced approach that permits AI use while reaffirming traditional professional values.
The new guidance sends a powerful message to lawyers, law firms, and judges alike: artificial intelligence may be a valuable assistant, but it is not a substitute for competence, judgment, confidentiality, honesty, or ethical responsibility. As AI continues to transform legal practice, those principles will remain the foundation of the profession.
Reference
Tags : International Legal Article
Copyright A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by A unit of White Code Global Consulting Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.
