Rhode Island Court Sets New Standards for AI in Legal Practice
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has officially redefined what it means for an attorney to be competent in the modern age. On June 17, 2026, the court amended Comment [6] to Rule 1.1 of Article V of its Rules of Professional Conduct, explicitly stating that legal competence now requires lawyers to maintain an understanding of the risks and benefits associated with existing and developing technology. This shift, outlined in a formal order, moves beyond abstract professional ideals into a set of interim guidelines that govern how Rhode Island practitioners must handle generative AI.
While these guidelines are labeled as advisory and carry no independent force of law, they serve as a clear indicator of how the state’s highest court interprets the existing rules it enforces. The message is practical: technology is a tool, not a substitute for legal judgment. The court emphasizes that lawyers must personally verify every citation, statement of fact, and legal argument produced by AI, warning that an honest mistake does not provide cover under the rules of candor.
The Obligation to Verify and the Limits of Delegation
The core of the court’s guidance is an uncompromising demand for accuracy. Because generative AI models are known to “hallucinate”—or invent cases that appear entirely authentic—the burden of verification rests solely with the attorney. The guidelines direct practitioners to pull every case, read the primary source, and check every quote before filing. This process must be built into the workflow of every firm, as the court makes it clear that partners and supervisors are responsible for the AI use of their staff, including independent contractors.
This scrutiny extends to opposing counsel as well. The court instructs lawyers to monitor the output of the other side with the same level of diligence applied to their own work. If an attorney discovers fabricated authority in a filing, the duty to report it is immediate. Even a single bad citation can trigger this professional obligation, putting the legal community on notice that the “black box” of AI is no excuse for misleading the bench.
Passing AI Time Savings to Clients
The transition to AI-assisted work also introduces new complications for client billing and transparency. The court clarifies that everyday AI subscriptions are considered overhead. Consequently, firms cannot bill clients for the time spent learning these tools, as ongoing technical competence is now a baseline requirement for practice under Rule 1.1. When an AI tool significantly reduces the time required for a specific task, the court expects that savings to be passed on to the client; attorneys may only bill for the hours actually spent on the representation.
Regarding disclosure, the court stops short of requiring a notification for every instance of AI use. However, it mandates disclosure when the use of AI is significant to the task or when it informs a client’s confidence in the work. For firms that integrate AI into their daily operations, the court suggests incorporating these policies directly into engagement agreements to ensure the client understands the nature of the representation.
Protecting Client Confidentiality Before Deploying Tools
The final pillar of the court’s guidance concerns the sanctity of client confidentiality. Before deploying any generative tool, lawyers must conduct a thorough review of privacy policies and terms of use. The court warns that free consumer-grade accounts often lack the strong protections found in paid business plans. An attorney’s ethical screens must extend to these digital tools, and the court notes that an AI chatbot owes prospective clients the same duty of confidentiality as the firm itself.
As the legal industry continues to adapt to these technologies, the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s approach aligns with a broader national trend of judicial oversight. While Massachusetts goes a step further and bars judges and court staff from using generative AI for legal research and writing, Rhode Island has chosen to emphasize the responsibility of the individual advocate. This approach puts the professional accountability for every line of a brief squarely back in the hands of the human lawyer, regardless of the software used to draft it.
