Subscribe!
Rhode Island Supreme Court Issues AI Rules for Lawyers and Judges, Says AI Can “Hallucinate”
The Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted new guidance for lawyers and judicial officers using generative artificial intelligence, putting the state’s legal system on record: AI may be useful, but it does not replace professional judgment, accuracy, confidentiality or ethics.
The court amended Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, dealing with lawyer competence, to clarify that lawyers must keep up with changes in the law and legal practice, including “the benefits and risks associated with existing and developing technology.” The court also adopted interim guidelines for the ethical use of generative AI by Rhode Island lawyers and judicial officers.
The guidelines are advisory, not new law, and the court said they may be revised as AI technology continues to evolve. But they set out a clear expectation for Rhode Island’s legal community: lawyers may use AI tools, but they remain responsible for checking the work.
AI Can Help — But Lawyers Must Check the Work
The court’s lawyer guidance notes that generative AI tools can produce “hallucinations” — producing answers that appear legitimate but are false, including fake legal citations or mischaracterized precedent. Before submitting or filing any document created by or with AI, lawyers are expected to review the work, verify citations and statements of law or fact, correct errors and remove misleading arguments.
The concern is not theoretical. Around the country, judges have sanctioned lawyers for court filings containing bogus AI-generated citations. Rhode Island’s guidance puts the burden back where courts say it belongs: on the lawyer who signs and files the document.
Reuters says Rhode Island is among states moving to regulate lawyer AI use; recent cases around the country have involved lawyers filing briefs with fake AI-generated citations.
Business Insider reported a recent Mississippi case where a federal judge sanctioned attorneys for submitting filings with bogus citations generated by AI.
The move places Rhode Island among a growing number of states trying to respond to AI’s rapid spread through the legal industry. Courts around the country have sanctioned lawyers for submitting filings containing fake AI-generated cases and citations. Florida recently adopted a rule requiring lawyers to certify that cases cited in filings exist and are accurately cited, while New York’s rule says filings must contain no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes or other material.
Client Communication, Confidentiality and Fees
The guidance also addresses client communication. Lawyers are not required to tell clients every time they use AI, but they should disclose AI use when it is significant to the work, when it helps the client understand the representation, when the client asks, or when client information is entered into an AI system.
Confidentiality is also front and center. The court’s guidance tells lawyers to understand the terms, privacy policies and security practices of AI tools before using them for legal work, especially whether a system stores information, retains client data or allows access outside the firm.
Fees are another major issue. The court says lawyers may not bill clients for time saved by AI. If AI allows a lawyer to complete a task in one hour instead of two, the lawyer may bill only for the actual time spent. Routine AI costs are generally to be treated as office overhead, similar to rent, utilities, software or malpractice insurance. A lawyer also generally may not bill a client for learning how to use an AI tool.
Law Firms Must Set Policies
The rules also extend responsibility up the chain in law firms. Partners, managers and supervisory lawyers are expected to set policies for AI use, train staff, protect client information and make sure lawyers, employees and outside contractors use AI tools properly.
Judges Are Covered, Too
Judges are also covered. The court’s separate guidance for judicial officers says AI may help with research, evidence review, testimony summaries and drafting, but it must not undermine or replace a judge’s independent decision-making.
Years of AI Review in Rhode Island
The new guidance follows work by Rhode Island’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, created in 2024 to study how AI could affect the practice of law, court operations, professional conduct, judicial conduct, criminal law, evidence and access to justice.
The new Supreme Court guidance lands in an area Rhode Island lawyers have been watching for years.
The Rhode Island Bar Association has not yet appeared to issue a separate public statement on the new order, but the Bar has been part of the state judiciary’s AI review process. When the Supreme Court created its Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts in 2024, it named Linn F. Freedman, Esq., as the Rhode Island Bar Association designee on the steering committee. The Bar has also been cautioning members that AI tools should be treated as a first draft, not a final product.
Rhode Island attorneys were already flagging AI’s legal risks years before the Supreme Court’s new guidance. In a 2019 PLDO advisory, Kas R. DeCarvalho wrote that AI was moving quickly into business use and warned of regulatory issues tied to over-reliance on machine-generated decision-making, data quality, privacy, bias, transparency and consumer trust. DeCarvalho, who is now a Rhode Island District Court judge, wrote that responsible AI would require “fair, interpretable, safe and transparent systems.”
Brian J. Lamoureux, a partner at Pannone Lopes Devereaux & O’Gara and a Providence College professor of practice, has been one of Rhode Island’s visible legal voices on artificial intelligence in the courts. He presented on AI to the Rhode Island Judiciary at the 2024 Fall Judicial Conference including how AI tools are evolving, how lawyers are using them, and how courts are responding.
AI Evidence May Be the Next Courtroom Fight
AI evidence may be the next courtroom fight. A federal judicial panel has been weighing whether AI-generated evidence needs a specific rule, though some lawyers argue existing evidence rules already cover reliability problems.
The next frontier may be evidence itself. Federal rulemakers have been debating whether AI-generated evidence needs its own reliability standard, raising questions that could eventually matter in civil, criminal and administrative cases in Rhode Island.
Broader AI Policy in Rhode Island
RI also has broader AI policy moving outside the courts. Rhode Island has a state AI Task Force looking at AI development, use and regulation, and legislation has been proposed around high-risk AI systems and algorithmic discrimination.
The court action also lands as Rhode Island officials are looking more broadly at AI policy. The state has an AI Task Force, and lawmakers have considered proposals involving high-risk AI systems, consumer protections and algorithmic discrimination.
The debate is also global.
At this week’s G7 summit in France, leaders and AI executives discussed how democracies should cooperate on artificial intelligence, including safety standards, cybersecurity uses, access to advanced U.S. AI models, and concerns that allied countries could splinter into competing AI systems and rules. The discussion gives Rhode Island’s court guidance a broader context: AI is now being handled at every level, from local court filings to international diplomacy.
Rhode Island’s message is simple: AI may help lawyers move faster, but it does not excuse mistakes. In court, a fake case is still a fake case — even if a chatbot wrote it.
–
Rhode Island Supreme Court
The Rhode Island Supreme Court is the state’s court of last resort. The Supreme Court has absolute appellate jurisdiction over questions of law and equity, supervisory powers over other state courts, and general advisory responsibility to the Legislative and the Executive branches of state government concerning the constitutionality of legislation. The Supreme Court is also responsible for regulating admission to the Rhode Island Bar and disciplining the members.
Image, top, AI-generated