Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / United States (state)

In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Rhode Island

last revised 2026-06-17last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

Court ruleIn forceCompetenceVerification dutyConfidentialitySupervisionClient consent

map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIJudges' use of AIDuty to verify AI outputClient data in AI toolsBilling for AI workTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workAI-generated evidenceClient consent and transparency

By order of 17 June 2026 the Rhode Island Supreme Court amended Article V, Rule 1.1 Comment [6] so that competence expressly includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of developing technology, and adopted advisory interim generative-AI guidelines for Rhode Island lawyers and for judicial officers. The guidelines do not carry the force of law.

Applies to
lawyers, judges, court-staff, firms
Effective
See version history
Current version
Original · 17 Jun 2026
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendmen…

What the document requires

  • Rule 1.1 Comment [6] now requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with existing and developing technology
  • Lawyers must review all GAI output for accuracy, verify citations and facts, and correct false or misleading arguments before filing
  • A lawyer may charge only for actual time spent; everyday GAI tool costs are non-billable overhead, and GAI training costs generally may not be billed
  • A lawyer must disclose GAI use when the client asks, or when entering client information into a GAI system
  • Judicial officers may consult but should never rely on GAI-produced content when drafting orders and decisions, and GAI must never influence or appear to influence a conclusion
  • Rule 2.9(C) risk: GAI output may import outside information amounting to prohibited independent factual investigation
  • Even a single incorrect citation may trigger a Rule 8.3 reporting obligation, including as to opposing counsel's output

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Originalcurrent2026-06-17Amends Rule 1.1 Comment [6] and adopts interim generative AI guidelines for lawyers and for judicial officersofficial

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines" (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Original, 2026-06-17), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in United States (state)