Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct · Ohio
last revised 2026-06-02last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
country page →GuidanceIn forceCompetenceConfidentialityVerification dutySupervision
map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIJudges' use of AIBilling for AI workClient data in AI toolsDuty to verify AI outputTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workDisclosure of AI use in filings
Nonbinding Board staff guidance applying the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct to AI. It covers competence, confidentiality, client communication, independent professional judgment, fees, candor to the tribunal and hallucinated citations, supervision of staff and vendors, and a substantial judicial section on competence, independent decision-making, ex parte risk and confidentiality.
- Applies to
- lawyers, judges, firms
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- Original · 02 Jun 2026
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
What the document requires
- The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit lawyers from using AI, but AI is now a 'relevant technology' for the duty of competence
- Lawyers may bill only for time actually spent, not the time a task would have taken without AI; standard AI tool costs are usually non-billable overhead
- Filing documents with fictitious citations, quotes or propositions of law implicates Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 3.1
- A lawyer who learns a filing contains a hallucination must immediately notify the court and opposing counsel
- A lawyer must comply with local rules and standing orders on the use and disclosure of AI tools (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4)
- A judge should never use AI to decide the ultimate conclusion in a case and should avoid AI-produced first drafts of decisions or orders
- Judges and staff must not enter confidential case information, or anything revealing judicial mental processes, into general or free public AI tools
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Originalcurrent | 2026-06-02 | Issued and distributed to Ohio lawyers and judicial officers | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers" (Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Original, 2026-06-02), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- California SB 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026): generative AI duties for attorneys and arbitrators · California Legislature
- Standing Order – Jury Trials · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Cleary)
- Standing Order for Courtroom 2309 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Golden)
- Standing Order, General Chancery Calendar 9 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division (Judge Horan)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Seaton)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Sullivan)