Colorado: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Colorado firm: No formal CBA ethics opinion on AI exists, but Rule Change 2026(02) (effective January 2026) codifies that AI use does not diminish RPC obligations, and People v. Crabill (90-day suspension) sets the discipline floor for filing unverified AI citations. Two D. Colo. judges require an AI certification on every filing, and the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) begins enforcement on 2026-06-30. Firms that cannot document a verification protocol, vendor confidentiality review, and an ADAI deployer assessment are exposed on Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4 today.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool.

Colorado Bar Association practice guidance (no formal opinion)

Citation: Maria E. Berkenkotter and Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Artificial Intelligence and Professional Conduct, 53 Colo. Law. 20 (Jan./Feb. 2024). Primary source.

Status: Practice guidance and educational commentary in the official CBA publication, co-authored by a sitting Colorado Supreme Court Justice and a Colorado Court of Appeals Judge. Not a formal CBA Ethics Committee opinion. The CBA ethics opinion index through Opinion 149 (March 2024, on virtual practice) contains no AI-specific opinion.

What it flags

• The article walks through the RPCs most directly implicated by attorney AI use: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, 7.1, and 8.4.
• The article appeared in the CBA’s official publication under appellate-judge authorship. A Colorado firm continuing unrestricted AI use without addressing the flagged issues cannot claim ignorance of the risks.

Notable gap

The article is educational, not prescriptive. It does not define what an “adequate” verification protocol looks like, leaving that question to the binding authorities below.

Rule Change 2026(02): Preamble and RPC 1.1 comments

Citation: Colorado Supreme Court, Rule Change 2026(02), adopted 2026-01-08, effective immediately.

Status: Binding rule amendment, en banc.

What it does

• New Preamble/Scope paragraph [20A] states that technology, including artificial intelligence, plays an increasing role in the practice of law. It does not diminish a lawyer’s responsibilities under the Rules.
• The Preamble lists Rules implicated by AI use. These cover communication, reasonable fees, preservation of client confidential information, meritorious claims and defenses, candor toward the tribunal, partner and supervisory responsibilities, nonlawyer assistance, communications about a lawyer’s services, and bias.
• Revised Comment [8] and new Comment [9] to RPC 1.1 require lawyers to understand the benefits and risks of technology they use.

What it does not do

• Does not create new affirmative disclosure or certification obligations.
• Does not define what competent AI use looks like operationally.
• Was described by the rule committee as a “wake-up call” rather than substantive new obligations.

What federal courts in Colorado require for AI use in filings

D. Colo., Judge S. Kato Crews: Standing Order for Civil Cases (current version December 2024) requires parties to certify whether generative AI was used in preparing any filing. If AI was used, even with subsequent human review, the use must be attested. The certification does not count toward page limits. See the tracker entry for Judge Crews’s standing order.

D. Colo., Judge Nina Y. Wang: A chambers standing order adopted December 2025 requires every filing to contain an AI Certification signed by all individuals who contributed to drafting. AI-drafted language must be disclosed even if later edited by a human. Legal citations must reference actual cases. In Hessert v. Street Dog Coalition (D. Colo., 2026-04-21), Judge Wang rejected First Amendment, due process, and equal protection challenges to the order.

D. Colo., Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell (discovery side): In Morgan v. V2X, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01991 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026), Judge Dominguez Braswell granted in part the defendant’s motion to amend the protective order. The court held that a litigant’s use of AI to prepare for litigation is protected work product under FRCP 26(b)(3), but the identity of the AI platform itself is not. The amended order bars uploading CONFIDENTIAL discovery to any AI platform unless the provider is contractually barred from training on inputs, restricted from third-party disclosure, and obligated to delete on request. Plaintiff was ordered to disclose any platform used with confidential material within 10 days. The order is a template for AI-specific protective-order provisions in federal litigation. See the tracker entry for the case.

No district-wide AI standing order has been adopted in D. Colo. The operative federal default elsewhere is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter.

What Colorado state courts require for AI use in filings

Colorado has no state-court attorney AI disclosure rule. Rule Change 2026(02) is a Rules of Professional Conduct amendment, not a court-filing rule. Colorado’s appellate courts have warned that AI-hallucinated citations are sanctionable. In Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (Dec. 26, 2024), the Court of Appeals held that submitting AI-generated fictitious citations violates C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B). The court stated, “We will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future.” It declined to sanction the pro-se litigant but expressly warned that future AI-hallucinated filings may result in sanctions.

People v. Crabill, 23PDJ067 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2023-11-22)

Court and judge: Colorado Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. Stipulation to Discipline (PDF).

Facts: Attorney Zachariah Crabill used ChatGPT to generate case citations and submitted them in a motion. Before a hearing, he discovered they were fictitious. He did not alert the court or withdraw the motion. When confronted, he falsely attributed the errors to a legal intern. Six days later he filed an affidavit disclosing his ChatGPT use.

Findings:

• Not reading or verifying AI-generated citations before filing violated RPCs 1.1 (Competence) and 1.3 (Diligence).
• Failing to alert the court or withdraw the motion after discovering fictitious citations violated RPC 3.3(a)(1) (Candor toward the tribunal).
• Falsely attributing the errors to an intern violated RPC 8.4(c) (Dishonesty/misrepresentation).
• The coverup was the aggravating factor that increased the sanction.

Discipline: Total suspension 1 year and 1 day; active suspension 90 days; remainder stayed on 2-year probation.

What AI-related rules are pending in Colorado?

Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205). Signed May 17, 2024; enforcement delayed by SB 25B-004 to 2026-06-30. The Act treats firms using AI for “consequential decisions” in “legal services” affecting Colorado consumers as deployers. A small-deployer exemption applies to firms under 50 full-time employees that do not fine-tune the AI on proprietary data. Covered deployers must maintain a NIST-AI-RMF-aligned risk management program, perform annual impact assessments, publish a website statement, disclose AI involvement before an AI-influenced consumer decision, and provide a plain-language explanation of any adverse decision. Civil penalty up to $20,000 per violation (AG enforcement, no private right of action). Definitions of “high-risk AI” and “consequential decision” in the legal services context are subject to ongoing AG rulemaking at coag.gov/ai.

Proposed state-court civil filings AI certification. Under consideration by the Colorado civil rules committee as of late 2025; not adopted; no draft rule text published.

How do malpractice carriers in Colorado treat AI use?

No Colorado malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard carriers point to is Rule Change 2026(02) plus the Crabill discipline order. The Crabill coverup element is particularly relevant to insurance posture. A false attribution or denial of AI use later in a malpractice proceeding may implicate intentional misconduct exclusions.

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

No Colorado malpractice carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standards the carrier or broker references are Rule Change 2026(02), Crabill, the Crews and Wang standing orders for D. Colo. matters, and the ADAI for any firm potentially within the deployer definition. Plan on producing six items. First, a written AI use policy. Second, citation verification logs. Third, vendor due-diligence records, including data retention and training restrictions. Fourth, a federal-court certification compliance procedure. Fifth, an ADAI deployer assessment with headcount documentation for the small-deployer exemption. Sixth, a supervision protocol for paralegal and contract-attorney AI use. The ADAI 2026-06-30 enforcement date is a hard timing trigger. Firms should complete the deployer assessment before that date regardless of renewal cycle.

What documentation should a Colorado firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational items.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering confidentiality vetting, citation verification, billing practices, and supervision. Anchored to Rule Change 2026(02) and the RPCs the Preamble lists.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for every court filing. Crabill establishes that zero verification violates Rules 1.1 and 1.3. Al-Hamim warns of future appellate sanctions.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Federal-court AI certification check at the opening of each D. Colo. matter. Confirm whether the assigned judge (currently Crews and Wang) requires an AI certification. Log AI use or non-use accurately during drafting.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Three documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool. Document that the vendor agreement prohibits training on client data and retention of uploaded materials. Confirm current data processing terms. Anchored to RPC 1.6 and the Rule Change 2026(02) Preamble.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate, paralegal, and contract-attorney AI use under RPCs 5.1 and 5.3. Identify approved tools, prohibited uses, and required attorney review of AI-generated work product.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) ADAI deployer assessment inventorying every AI tool in use. Document firm headcount for the small-deployer exemption analysis. Flag any tool that may rise to “high-risk AI” making “consequential decisions” in legal services. Complete before the 2026-06-30 enforcement date.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

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

1. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provision disclosing the firm’s AI use, identifying categories of use, and confirming confidentiality safeguards. Anchored to RPCs 1.4 and 1.6.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes capturing the tool used, the prompt category, the reviewer who verified output, and any client confidentiality decision. Anchored to Crabill, Rule Change 2026(02), and the Wang/Crews certification orders.

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