Alaska: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Alaska firm: Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (April 2025) is the Alaska Bar’s guidance on generative AI in legal practice. It is advisory. Before inputting client confidences into a tool, a lawyer “must review the program’s policies on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning,” and for a self-learning tool outside a closed system “must fully anonymize their inputs” unless the client gives informed consent. It also addresses review of AI output, billing, and supervision. As of 2026-09-30 no Alaska state court rule or D. Alaska order addresses AI in filings, and the opinion says lawyers “should also confirm whether and when any court rules or orders require them to disclose the use of GAI.”

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log, and a record of the data-policy review for each AI tool that may receive client confidences.

Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1

Citation: Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1, “Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law.” “Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on April 3, 2025. Adopted by the Board of Governors on April 23, 2025.” Primary source PDF. Adopted opinions index.

Status: Advisory ethics opinion, not a court rule. A footnote notes that other jurisdictions evaluating generative AI under their own rules “have reached similar conclusions,” citing ABA Formal Opinion 512 among others; ABA opinions are persuasive, not binding, in Alaska. As of 2026-09-30, the Bar’s later opinions (2025-2, 2026-1, and 2026-2) do not address AI.

What it says

• Confidences (ARPC 1.6). Whether a lawyer may input client confidences “depends. Before doing so, the lawyer must review the program’s policies on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning from user inputs.” To use a tool that self-learns outside a closed system, “lawyers must fully anonymize their inputs to protect client confidences and secrets, unless a client gives informed consent otherwise.” Where a tool may disclose confidences to a third party, a lawyer “should” discuss the proposed use with the client, advise of the risk, and obtain informed consent before inputting.
• Reviewing output (ARPC 1.3, 3.3, 5.3, 8.4). Lawyers “must exercise sound, independent judgment and critically examine and improve GAI outputs,” and must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of AI research.
• Court requirements (ARPC 1.1, 1.3). Lawyers “should also confirm whether and when any court rules or orders require them to disclose the use of GAI, as a lawyer’s representation cannot be competent or diligent if it does not comply with such authorities.”
• Billing time (ARPC 1.5). “The lawyer may not duplicate fees for work done by GAI or bill clients for time that the lawyer did not work.”
• Tool costs and training (ARPC 1.5). Absent advance disclosure to the contrary, general tool overhead is “subsumed within the lawyer’s charges for professional services.” To pass AI costs through, the lawyer “must explicitly disclose to the client (a) the client’s liability for the charges; and (b) the basis on which the charges will be computed” within a reasonable time after beginning the representation. A lawyer “may not charge a client to learn about how to use [GAI] that the lawyer will regularly use for clients, unless a client requests or expressly approves such training.”
• Supervision (ARPC 5.1, 5.3). “Any lawyer who supervises a junior lawyer who in turn uses GAI must understand enough about GAI to provide appropriate oversight and supervision.” The Committee “does not intend to specify what GAI policies a law firm should adopt”; it leaves that to each firm’s leadership.
• Closed systems. Tools that keep inputs within a firm’s own protected databases reduce the risk of sharing confidences, but that “does not fully eliminate this risk” where screened lawyers use the same tool without further safeguards.
• Bias (ARPC 8.4). Lawyers “should be cautious to avoid potential biases when using GAI, for example to screen potential clients.”

Rules cited

The opinion cites ARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4.

Technology competence baseline

Alaska added technology to the ARPC 1.1 competence comment by Supreme Court Order 1905 (effective October 15, 2017): a lawyer “should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Opinion 2025-1 builds on it: before using a tool, “lawyers must educate themselves about its capabilities and limitations, and its terms of use and other policies.”

What federal courts in Alaska require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, the District of Alaska has no general order or local rule on AI. Its general orders list runs through General Order 26-05 (June 30, 2026) with no AI order, and its local civil and criminal rules effective October 15, 2025 contain no AI provision. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court addressed AI-generated citations in Legarza v. Northern Star (February 12, 2026). Counsel may wish to check the assigned judge’s orders before filing.

What Alaska state courts require for AI use in filings

No Alaska Supreme Court order or court rule on AI in filings has been identified; the court’s orders index through Supreme Court Order 2051 contains none. The Alaska Court System operates a public-facing probate chatbot, AVA, which the court describes as using “artificial intelligence (AI) to answer your questions” (FAQ); it is a self-help tool, not a rule of practice. ARPC 3.3’s candor obligation applies to all filings regardless of AI involvement.

What AI-related legislation has Alaska considered?

As of 2026-09-30, the only bill below that became law is HB 239, an omnibus crime bill, and none of the bills regulates attorney use of AI. The 2026 regular session has ended, and bills without further action lapse when the 34th Legislature ends.

• Senate Bill 2 (introduced January 22, 2025) addresses AI-generated election communications, state agency AI inventories and impact assessments, and limits on state agency use of AI for consequential decisions involving biometric identification, emotion recognition, or social scoring. It was heard and held in Senate State Affairs on April 29, 2025, with no further action. It would primarily affect government-facing legal work.
• House Bill 47 (generated child sexual abuse material, generated images, and minors’ social media) passed the House on February 27, 2026 and was referred to Senate Judiciary on April 10, 2026, with no further action.
• House Bill 239, an omnibus crime bill, became law without the Governor’s signature as Chapter 9, SLA 2026 (June 18, 2026). Among other things it creates crimes involving “generated obscene child sexual abuse material,” largely effective July 1, 2026. Its relevance to firm AI governance is limited to criminal practice.
• House Concurrent Resolution 3 would have created a joint legislative AI task force. It was referred to the House Finance Committee on April 11, 2025, with no further action, so no task force was established.

How do malpractice carriers in Alaska treat AI use?

ALPS is the Alaska Bar Association’s endorsed carrier. Alaska does not require malpractice insurance, but ARPC 1.4(c) requires a lawyer to “inform an existing client in writing if the lawyer does not have malpractice insurance of at least $100,000 per claim and $300,000 annual aggregate,” to notify clients if coverage drops below those amounts or ends, and to keep a record of those disclosures for six years. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located. Whether a given policy responds to an AI-related claim depends on its terms, which is a question for the firm’s broker.

What does my Alaska malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Alaska-specific AI application items published by ALPS were located. Firms that want to be ready for questions may wish to have on hand the firm’s AI use policy, the data-policy review for each tool in use, consent records for matters where client confidences are input, billing-disclosure language where AI costs are passed through, and the citation verification log, all measured against Opinion 2025-1. Confirm application items directly with the carrier or broker.

What documentation should an Alaska firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved platforms (with completed data-policy review), prohibited uses (such as inputting unanonymized client confidences into self-learning tools outside a closed system without consent), review before filing, and supervision of lawyers and nonlawyer staff. Opinion 2025-1 leaves the content of firm AI policies to firm leadership under ARPC 5.1.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log documenting that AI-generated citations and factual references were independently verified against primary sources before any court filing.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Court-requirement check before filing in any Alaska state or federal proceeding, as the opinion suggests, even though no court-wide order exists.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Tool data-policy review record for each AI platform in use: data retention, data sharing, and self-learning policies, whether the tool is a closed system, and any contractual confidentiality terms. This is the review the opinion says a lawyer must complete before inputting client confidences.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Staff training records for lawyers and nonlawyer staff using AI tools, supporting the supervision duties under ARPC 5.1 and 5.3.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client consent records for any matter where client confidences will be input into a tool that could disclose them, obtained before the first such input.
2. (Owner: billing partner) Billing disclosure language for engagements where AI tool costs will be passed to clients: written disclosure of the client’s liability for those charges and the basis for computing them, within a reasonable time after the representation begins.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Coverage review at each malpractice renewal, including any ARPC 1.4(c) client disclosure if coverage falls below the rule’s thresholds.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The newsletter covers new resources as they ship.