Delaware: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Delaware firm: No mandatory AI-specific bar rules yet, but Delaware is not a blank slate. The Rule 1.1 technology competence comment has been codified since 2013, the Court of Chancery has put litigants on notice that hallucinated citations are sanctionable, and the reformed Delaware Commission on Law and Technology (DCLT) is actively working on formal guidance. Firms doing Court of Chancery work, including national M&A, appraisal, and books-and-records counsel, should treat An v. Archblock as a baseline expectation for citation verification.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification protocol scaled to Court of Chancery filings, and vendor diligence records for each AI tool in use.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

No formal ethics opinion on attorney use of generative AI has issued from the Delaware State Bar Association (DSBA) Committee on Professional Ethics. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has not published AI-specific informal written guidance. Working toward Delaware-specific guidance is the reformed DCLT, and the Delaware Supreme Court has already adopted a court-side Interim Policy on GenAI (see the State courts section). Pending substance lives in the Pending activity section below.

In the meantime, Delaware’s existing Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (DLRPC) Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 govern AI use directly. Delaware adopted the ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 technology-competence language effective March 1, 2013. It was one of the first states to do so. The duty to keep abreast of relevant technology, including AI, is codified, not merely implied. Rule text is published at the Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel rules page.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) is the operative interpretive framework while Delaware-specific guidance is in development. Delaware has not diverged from Model Rule equivalents on the AI-relevant provisions, so Op 512’s analysis of Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 maps cleanly onto Delaware practice.

What federal courts in Delaware require for AI use in filings

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.) handles a heavy patent-litigation docket. No district-wide AI standing order or local rule has been confirmed as of April 2026. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support, and legal contentions must be warranted. Individual D. Del. judges may impose AI disclosure or verification requirements through chambers procedures or scheduling orders. At each new D. Del. matter, firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders and chambers procedures.

What Delaware state courts require for AI use in filings

On October 21, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Branch Judicial Officers, Employees, Law Clerks, Interns, Externs, and Volunteers. The policy binds judicial-branch personnel, not appearing attorneys directly. It permits but does not require GenAI use. State technology resources are restricted to “Approved GenAI” tools, and entering non-public information into unapproved tools is prohibited. Any court user is personally responsible for the accuracy of AI-assisted output. The DCLT is directed to monitor implementation. For appearing attorneys, the policy signals that Delaware courts treat human oversight of AI output as a baseline expectation, not an option.

The Court of Chancery’s April 2025 ruling in An v. Archblock (below) is the controlling Delaware court statement on attorney and litigant AI use to date.

An v. Archblock (Del. Ch. 2025)

Citation: Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW (Del. Ch. Apr. 3, 2025), Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will. Opinion available at the Delaware Courts opinion download.

A pro se litigant filed a motion to compel discovery containing case citations that, on independent review by the court, either did not exist, did not support the proposition cited, or contained quoted language absent from the cited authority. On the record, the court concluded the litigant had used generative AI and that the AI had hallucinated. Per the opinion: “the submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable.” No sanction was imposed in this instance because the litigant was pro se. The underlying motion was being denied on other grounds.

Going forward in that matter, the litigant was ordered to certify in any future filing whether GenAI was used and which tool. Any AI-prepared text had to have undergone human review for accuracy and completeness, including confirmation that cited authority is accurate and stands for the cited proposition. Vice Chancellor Will acknowledged that GenAI can speed research, drafting, and document review, and noted access-to-justice benefits for pro se litigants. Although the opinion does not categorically disfavor AI use, it draws a clear line between careful AI-assisted work and unverified submission of AI-generated content.

Significance for Delaware and national practice: The Court of Chancery is the preeminent forum for U.S. corporate and business law, and An v. Archblock is the court’s first AI-related ruling. Disclosure language was imposed on one litigant in one matter, not by court-wide standing order. The opinion’s analysis applies generally and will be cited well beyond Delaware. Firms handling Chancery litigation, M&A disputes, appraisal proceedings, or books-and-records demands should treat the opinion as establishing a baseline expectation for citation verification.

What AI-related rules are pending in Delaware?

The DCLT, reformed by Delaware Supreme Court order in November 2023, is actively studying generative AI and drafting policy recommendations, including ethical issues presented when lawyers use AI in court filings. Educational publications listed on the DCLT resources page are informal attorney-education content, not formal ethics guidance. No DSBA draft opinion on AI has been announced.

The Delaware Artificial Intelligence Commission, established by House Bill 333 (signed July 17, 2024), develops statewide AI governance recommendations for executive, legislative, and judicial agencies. It also inventories GenAI usage and high-risk areas in Delaware government. Annual reports are due each December 31. Because the Commission’s mandate extends to judicial agencies, recommendations may interact with attorney-practice rules over time. Its focus is government AI use, not attorney professional responsibility directly.

How do malpractice carriers in Delaware treat AI use?

No Delaware-specific malpractice carrier AI underwriting guidance has been identified for this entry. The substantive standard available today combines DLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, the codified Rule 1.1 technology-competence comment, ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority, and the Court of Chancery’s An v. Archblock framing of citation accuracy. Delaware’s codified tech-competence duty (since 2013) means AI-related incompetence is a viable malpractice theory rather than a novel one.

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

No Delaware malpractice carrier has published specific AI application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard is DLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, supplemented by ABA Formal Opinion 512. Plan on producing: a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool, a citation verification protocol (with heightened rigor for Court of Chancery filings under An v. Archblock), training records for attorneys and staff, and a competence and training log responsive to the Rule 1.1 technology comment. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Delaware firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (DLRPC Rules 5.1, 5.3; ABA Op 512). Enumerate approved tools. Prohibit submitting unverified AI output to courts or clients. Assign verification responsibility per matter, and address which tools may receive client-identifying information. Positions the firm ahead of formal DSBA guidance still in development.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification protocol (DLRPC Rules 3.3, 1.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Documented step requiring independent Westlaw or Lexis lookup of each cited case. Confirm that quoted language appears in the cited authority and that the case stands for the stated proposition before filing. Treat Court of Chancery matters as the highest-rigor context under An v. Archblock.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Court-specific AI disclosure workflow for Chancery matters (An v. Archblock). On active Court of Chancery filings, voluntary disclosure of generative AI use and attestation of citation accuracy as a protective practice, mirroring the certification language the court imposed on the An v. Archblock litigant.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due-diligence record (DLRPC Rule 1.6). For each AI platform: documented review of privacy policy, terms of service, data retention practices, training-data use, and confidentiality protections. Separate review for each platform (drafting, research, intake, contract review). Update when vendor terms change.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (DLRPC Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Capture date, attendees, and training content. Cover hallucination risks, Rule 3.3 candor, verification procedures, Rule 1.6 confidentiality, and the firm’s AI use policy. Supports the firm’s position that the codified Rule 1.1 technology-competence duty is being met.
3. (Owner: managing partner) DCLT and DSBA monitoring log (DLRPC Rule 1.1). Tracking record for DCLT committee output, Delaware Supreme Court AI policy updates, and any forthcoming DSBA ethics opinions. Position the firm to update policy promptly when Delaware-specific guidance issues.

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) Per-matter AI use notes (DLRPC Rules 1.1, 3.3). On any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content, a brief attorney note: which tool, what tasks, how output was verified.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client confidentiality consent (DLRPC Rule 1.6). Written informed consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform; document tool, information shared, and purpose.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Fee reasonableness review for AI-assisted matters (DLRPC Rule 1.5; ABA Op 512). When AI dramatically reduces time, billing must reflect actual time spent rather than time the work would have taken manually.

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