Arkansas: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Arkansas firm: Two binding instruments are in force, Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25 (2025 Ark. 117) and the 2025 amendments to Rule 5.3 and the Preamble of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct (2025 Ark. 115), and there is no standalone formal ethics opinion. Active enforcement at both the state Supreme Court (In re McClain) and the Western District (Hatfield v. Pirani, more than $1.5 million in fees and costs) makes the risk of sanctions for unverified AI citations concrete and immediate. Firms that cannot show a documented citation-verification protocol and a written AI use policy aligned to Rule 1.6 and Administrative Order No. 25 are exposed today.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for every filing, and training records covering attorneys and staff.

Arkansas Bar Association AI Task Force guidance and binding rule amendments

Citation: Arkansas Bar Association AI Task Force recommendations, adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court as binding amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct in In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115, and as a binding administrative order in In re Creation of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence, 2025 Ark. 117.

Status: No numbered formal ethics opinion has been issued by the Arkansas Bar Association Ethics Committee. The task force’s substantive positions have been adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court as binding rule amendments (2025 Ark. 115) and a binding administrative order (2025 Ark. 117). The task force position itself is non-binding guidance; the rule amendments and administrative order are binding.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• A person disclosing confidential or sealed information about a client or case to a generative AI tool, intentionally or inadvertently, may violate Administrative Order No. 19, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Court personnel with internal access to CourtConnect, the Arkansas state court data system, may not intentionally expose court system data to any external generative AI tool.
• The amended Rule 5.3 (“Nonlawyer Assistance”) makes the supervising attorney personally and fully responsible for AI-generated work product used in client matters.
• The amended Preamble forecloses any “the computer did it” defense: generative AI tools are not prohibited, but their use remains fully subject to all existing rules.

What it recommends (task force “should” positions)

• Attorneys must understand AI limitations before relying on AI output.
• Confidential client information should not enter public AI systems without understanding the vendor’s data retention policies.
• All AI-generated content requires verification before use or submission.
• Attorneys seeking written ethics guidance on a specific AI use scenario should request an informal ethics opinion from the Arkansas Bar’s ethics hotline.

Notable gaps

Administrative Order No. 25 is narrower than Rule 1.6: it covers confidential or sealed court records and CourtConnect data, not all client confidential information. Rule 1.6 remains the primary guardrail for general client data. Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 3.3 were not separately amended; they apply to AI use through their existing text. The Arkansas Bar Association Ethics Committee has not issued a numbered formal opinion interpreting any ARPC rule in the AI context.

What federal courts in Arkansas require for AI use in filings

Neither the Eastern District of Arkansas nor the Western District of Arkansas has a district-wide standing order requiring attorneys to disclose AI use in filings. Individual judge orders have not been systematically reviewed; firms should confirm the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In the Western District, Judge Timothy L. Brooks has addressed AI through the sanctions order in Hatfield v. Pirani (see Notable enforcement).

What Arkansas state courts require for AI use in filings

Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25 is the operative state-court rule on AI and confidential or sealed court information. It does not require pre-filing attorney disclosure of AI use and does not impose a certification statement analogous to standing orders in some federal courts. An exemption is available for court-approved research and analysis projects, subject to prior approval by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Automation Committee. No Arkansas circuit court has been identified as having an attorney-facing AI disclosure rule beyond the Administrative Order.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Arkansas?

In re Dana McClain (Arkansas Supreme Court, December 2025)

In December 2025 the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a show-cause order to attorney Dana McClain. A petition she submitted in an expedited juvenile dependency-neglect matter contained citations to cases that could not be located, quotations attributed to those nonexistent cases, and a statute cited without noting a subsequent amendment. McClain used Microsoft Office Copilot, with prompts seeking Arkansas dependency-neglect case law. A secondary concern surfaced too. Confidential or sealed juvenile information may have been uploaded to the AI platform, potentially implicating Administrative Order No. 25 and ARPC Rule 1.6 obligations. The court ordered a written affidavit disclosing which AI tools were used, what prompts were entered, how citations were generated, and which documents were uploaded. McClain self-reported to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct and resigned. Rules implicated: ARPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), 1.6, 1.1, and 5.3.

Hatfield v. Pirani, No. 5:22-CV-5110 (W.D. Ark. 2025)

Attorney Tony Pirani used ChatGPT to draft post-trial motions in the Western District of Arkansas before Judge Timothy L. Brooks. The filings contained citations to nonexistent cases and quotations from nonexistent passages. Pirani electronically signed and filed the documents. Judge Brooks imposed sanctions of $1,578,172 in additional attorney fees and $93,388 in costs, payable to the opposing party. He also referred Pirani to the Arkansas Judiciary’s Office of Professional Conduct. According to the court, the sanctions were intended to deter similar misconduct by other attorneys in the Western District. The court flagged “particularly the uncritical use of artificial intelligence in court filings.” Two separate Arkansas courts have now imposed or initiated discipline for AI hallucinations in the same calendar year.

What AI-related rules are pending in Arkansas?

No pending Arkansas Supreme Court rule amendments on AI have been identified beyond the 2025 amendments already in force. The Arkansas Bar Association Ethics Committee has not issued a numbered formal opinion and no draft opinion is publicly out for comment. SB 258 (Arkansas Digital Responsibility, Safety, and Trust Act), which would have created comprehensive consumer privacy and high-risk AI regulation, died on the Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment on 2025-05-05.

Two enacted statutes touch firm operations rather than ethics. Act 159 of 2025 (HB 1071) prohibits unauthorized commercial use of AI-generated likenesses, voices, or images, which reaches firm marketing content. Effective 2025-08-03, Act 927 of 2025 (HB 1876) establishes ownership rules for AI output. The person directing a generative AI tool owns the resulting output, provided that input data is lawfully obtained and the output does not infringe existing IP rights. Employer-directed output belongs to the employer.

How do malpractice carriers in Arkansas treat AI use?

No Arkansas-specific malpractice carrier bulletin on AI has been identified. The two 2025 enforcement actions (McClain and Pirani) signal that carriers offering LPL to Arkansas firms may begin requiring AI use policies, analogous to how they have addressed cybersecurity protocols. Arkansas Insurance Bulletin 13-2024 (issued 2024-07-31) addressed AI use by insurers operating in Arkansas, adopting the NAIC Model Bulletin framework. It does not directly regulate law firms but signals that Arkansas regulators are engaged with AI risk across industries. Firms with documented AI governance programs are better positioned in both underwriting and in defending a claim.

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

No Arkansas carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard a carrier or broker will reference combines three sources: Administrative Order No. 25, the amended Rule 5.3 and Preamble, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024). The ABA opinion is the national baseline where no Arkansas-specific ethics opinion exists. Plan on producing five items. First, a written AI use policy. Second, a citation verification log for every filing. Third, vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool in use. Fourth, a supervision and review log tied to the amended Rule 5.3. Fifth, an incident response protocol covering Rule 3.3 duty-to-correct, Rule 1.4 client notification, and Rule 8.3 self-reporting analysis. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Arkansas firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy naming approved tools, prohibited inputs (confidential or sealed information per Administrative Order No. 25; client confidential information per Rule 1.6), the citation verification protocol, and the responsibility matrix for review of AI-generated work product. Distribute to all firm personnel including non-lawyer staff.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist or log for every filing. Every case citation, statutory citation, and regulatory reference verified against a primary source before submission. Directly addresses the enforcement risk in McClain and Pirani.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Training records showing attorneys and staff understand AI limitations and firm policy, including the amended Rule 5.3 supervisory responsibility.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool in use: data handling terms, whether the tool retains client inputs for training, encryption posture, and whether vendor terms satisfy Rule 1.6. Obtain a data processing agreement or vendor security addendum where available.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision and review log documenting that a licensed attorney reviews, verifies, and takes personal responsibility for all AI-generated work product before it reaches a client, court, or opposing party. The amended Rule 5.3 makes that responsibility personal.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions addressing AI use, including that client confidential information will not be shared with AI platforms that retain data for training without client consent.

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 confidentiality screening before inputting any matter-specific information into an AI tool: confirm the information is not subject to a protective order or seal (Administrative Order No. 25), confirm the client has not contractually restricted AI use, and confirm the tool is on the firm’s approved list.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Incident response protocol for any AI-generated hallucination or error that reaches a court or client, covering Rule 3.3 duty-to-correct, Rule 1.4 client notification, and Rule 8.3 self-reporting analysis. McClain shows that prompt self-reporting to OPC is treated as a mitigating factor.

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