Monthly Newsletter
What changed this month in legal AI ethics. Covers state bar guidance, court orders on AI use, AI sanctions cases, and malpractice carrier developments. For licensed attorneys at small and mid-size firms.
Sent monthly. No vendor pitches. Unsubscribe anytime. The first issue ships once the newsletter list crosses 100 subscribers.
By submitting this form, you agree to our Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy.
What each issue covers
- New state bar AI guidance, including formal ethics opinions and practical-guidance updates
- New court orders on AI disclosure and certification (standing orders, general orders, local rules)
- AI sanctions cases decided in the past month
- Malpractice carrier developments: new AI questions, riders, or exclusions
- One short note on AI tools attorneys are using
Sample issue
A representative example, not a real issue. The first real issue ships when the list crosses 100 subscribers.
Three states moved this month, plus a $5,000 sanction in the Sixth Circuit
State bar guidance
- California: COPRAC opens public comment on proposed amendments to RPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 codifying the Practical Guidance. Comment period closes May 4. (See the California state page.)
- Connecticut: The Practice Book Committee proposes Rule 25-113 requiring AI disclosure on filings, effective July 1.
- Massachusetts: Boston Bar AI Task Force releases its first formal report; not yet binding guidance, but a strong signal of forthcoming rules.
Court orders
- S.D. Tex. issues General Order 2025-04 requiring AI disclosure plus verification certification on any filing where AI was used.
Sanctions cases this month
- Smith v. ABC Corp. (E.D. Tenn.): $5,000 monetary sanction plus disclosure to opposing counsel for AI-fabricated citations to non-existent Sixth Circuit cases. Court relied on Rule 11 plus the firm's lack of a written AI policy as aggravating factors.
Carrier developments
- One major bar-affiliated carrier added a question to its 2026 renewal application: "Has your firm experienced any AI-related incidents in the past 12 months, including filings rejected, withdrawn, or amended due to AI-generated errors?"
Tool note
Several firms have asked about Westlaw's AI-assisted research features. A short note on what counts as "use of AI" for disclosure purposes when the AI is embedded in a research platform.
How this differs from other digests
Legal AI digests already exist. Here's what makes this one different:
| Source | Audience | Format | What's distinctive |
|---|---|---|---|
| This newsletter | 5-50 attorney US firms | Monthly, primary-source-cited | Carrier-renewal lens; what changed and what to do about it for documentation |
| Bloomberg Law analysis | BigLaw, in-house counsel | Continuous reporting | Comprehensive but paywalled; written for sophisticated practitioners |
| Ropes & Gray AI tracker | BigLaw clients | Static tracker | Court-order coverage; no narrative monthly summary |
| RAILS resources | Academic and professional | Static resource pages | Excellent academic curation; not optimized for renewal-cycle action items |
| ABA Journal | All ABA members | Magazine + ongoing news | Broad legal news; AI is one of many topics |
FAQ
Is this legal advice?
No. The newsletter is informational; see disclaimer.
Is it free?
Yes. The newsletter is always free. The paid products are the Carrier-Renewal Packet and Implementation Consulting; the newsletter itself stays free.
Can I forward issues to colleagues?
Yes. Encouraged.
Will you sell my email?
No. See disclaimer for the full privacy posture.