Georgia: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Georgia firm: No mandatory AI rules yet, but the enforcement environment is active and parallel committee processes (State Bar Special Committee, Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee) signal imminent change. The Georgia Bar AI Toolkit is the operative informal guidance; Shahid v. Esaam is the clearest local signal that hallucinated citations draw the maximum available sanction. Firms that cannot document a written AI policy, vendor diligence, and citation verification are exposed today on Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3.

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

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

The State Bar of Georgia has not issued a formal ethics opinion on attorney AI use. Operative informal guidance is the State Bar of Georgia Generative AI Toolkit, launched November 19, 2025, by the Law Practice Management Program in conjunction with the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology. It is designated a “living document” and explicitly states it should not be substituted for formal advisory opinions or rulings by courts of competent jurisdiction.

Existing Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct are mapped to AI use as follows. Rule 1.1 covers ongoing AI education and human oversight of AI-generated content. Rule 1.5 addresses fee reasonableness when AI reduces time, and informed consent for fee structures. Rule 1.6 prohibits inputting confidential client information into AI without adequate confidentiality and security protections; vet vendor privacy policies and consider premium plans with enhanced privacy. Rule 3.3 requires verification of all AI-generated citations before filing. Rules 5.1 and 5.3 cover firm policies, staff training, and vendor credential verification.

Two committee processes are running in parallel and expected to produce formal rulemaking in 2026-2027. The State Bar Special Committee on AI and Technology was formed October 31, 2024 with 23 members and is chaired by Darrell Lee Sutton. It is examining whether existing GRPC adequately address AI and will report to the Executive Committee, Board of Governors, and Supreme Court of Georgia. The Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts, chaired by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, submitted its report July 3, 2025 and described revisions to lawyer conduct rules as “particularly critical.” See “Pending activity” below.

Georgia has not formally adopted the ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 technology competence comment (“benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”). Georgia is one of the small minority of states that has not incorporated the 2012 ABA amendment into its Rules of Professional Conduct; the underlying Rule 1.1 competence duty still applies. Status confirmed via Georgia State University Law Review survey and the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct on gabar.org.

What federal courts in Georgia require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order has been adopted in N.D. Ga., M.D. Ga., or S.D. Ga. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Secondary sources (the Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker and Gentry Locke survey) describe an AI-specific standing order from Judge Jean-Paul Boulee (N.D. Ga.). The standing order published on his chambers page contains no AI provisions when extracted, only Bluebook formatting under Legal Citations. The aggregator claim is unsubstantiated against the primary source as of 2026-05-01. At the opening of each new federal matter, firms should review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders directly with chambers rather than relying on aggregator summaries.

What Georgia state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide AI rule applies to attorneys in Georgia state court. In late July 2025, Cherokee County Chief Magistrate Judge Jack “Trey” Goodwin III issued an AI disclosure standing order in response to Shahid v. Esaam. It requires any attorney or self-represented party to disclose in the filing itself any use of AI tools to “create, prepare, draft or review” the document (Tribune Ledger News, July 29, 2025). The court does not post the order’s full text online. Firms filing in that court should obtain the text directly from chambers before filing. Beyond Cherokee County, individual courts have not been systematically surveyed; firms should check local rules and chambers practices when filing.

Shahid v. Esaam (Ga. Ct. App. 2025)

Citation: Shahid v. Esaam, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 299; Case No. A25A0196 (Ga. Ct. App., First Division, decided June 30, 2025).

Attorney Diana Lynch submitted briefs in a divorce proceeding containing 11 fabricated citations out of 15 total. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order, which had itself relied on two fictitious cases apparently imported from appellee’s brief, and remanded for a new hearing. Under Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2), the court imposed the maximum available sanction: a $2,500 penalty on attorney Lynch for filing a frivolous motion for attorney fees. The opinion cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, noting AI applications are “prone to hallucinations.”

Significance for Georgia firms: This is the clearest Georgia signal that hallucinated citations draw the maximum available sanction. By imposing the maximum penalty alongside vacatur of the trial-court order, the Court of Appeals signaled heightened judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted work product across Georgia appellate practice.

A separate enforcement matter became public in March 2026 when a Clayton County prosecutor’s brief to the Georgia Supreme Court was identified as containing AI-hallucinated citations. Chief Justice Nels Peterson flagged “at least five citations to cases that don’t exist, and at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they are cited, including three quotations that don’t exist.” The Clayton County District Attorney apologized. Internal sanctions were imposed on attorney Deborah Leslie and a State Bar of Georgia grievance was filed. As of April 2026, the State Bar investigation remains pending.

What AI-related rules are pending in Georgia?

Special Committee on AI and Technology (State Bar): Formed October 31, 2024. No published timeline; recommendations expected to inform formal rulemaking in 2026-2027.

Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts: Report submitted July 3, 2025. The report recommends a “human-in-the-loop” approach. “Black box” sentencing algorithms and AI in jury selection are prohibited. Updated cybersecurity practices and bias training are mandated. Revisions to lawyer conduct rules are described as “particularly critical.” Appendix B contains an Interim Court AI Use Policy, and a three-year phased implementation is proposed.

SB 540 (AI chatbot disclosure): Passed the Georgia legislature March 27, 2026; awaiting the Governor’s signature as of research date. If enacted, AI chatbots must disclose their AI nature; a law firm operating a client-facing AI intake chatbot would need to disclose its AI nature, with potential UDAP exposure for non-compliance.

How do malpractice carriers in Georgia treat AI use?

No Georgia malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. Under GRPC 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, the Georgia Bar AI Toolkit establishes the operative informal standard of care; violations are the most likely triggers for malpractice exposure. Both Shahid v. Esaam and the Clayton County matter received statewide attention. Carriers underwriting Georgia attorneys in appellate practice should be assumed aware of AI-hallucination risk regardless of whether questionnaires explicitly ask about it.

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

Georgia carriers have not, in materials reviewed for this entry, published specific AI application items. Carriers and brokers will reference the Georgia Bar AI Toolkit as the substantive standard. Shahid v. Esaam is the precedent demonstrating the cost of a verification failure in Georgia appellate practice. Plan on producing five artifacts. A written AI use policy. Vendor due-diligence records. A citation-verification log for court filings. Training records for attorneys and staff. Engagement-letter language addressing AI tool use. Confirm application items directly with your broker. If formal Georgia rules emerge during the renewal cycle, documented prompt awareness of the new rules will become an underwriting factor.

What documentation should a Georgia firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy governing approved tools, permitted purposes, review requirements, and confidentiality controls. Directly responsive to GRPC 5.1 and 5.3 as interpreted in the Georgia Bar AI Toolkit; having a policy in place before formal rules arrive demonstrates proactive compliance.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (GRPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in federal court). In light of Shahid v. Esaam, this is the highest-risk individual exposure item in Georgia today.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (GRPC 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Record date, attendees, and content of AI training, including hallucination risk, candor obligations, confidentiality, and firm policy.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due-diligence records (GRPC 1.6). For each AI tool, document review of privacy policy, terms of service, data retention, and confidentiality protections, per the AI Toolkit’s vendor-vetting expectation.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (GRPC 5.1, 5.3). Document how the firm trains and supervises attorney and staff AI use, including verification of AI vendor credentials.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Committee monitoring log tracking State Bar Special Committee and Judicial Council activity. When formal rules emerge (expected 2026-2027), documented prompt awareness demonstrates good faith.

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 (GRPC 1.1, 3.3). For matters where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content: tool used, tasks performed, and how output was verified.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check (GRPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At each new federal matter, review the assigned judge’s standing orders (including Judge Boulee’s in N.D. Ga.); for state-court matters in Cherokee County Magistrate Court, confirm the local AI disclosure order’s current text and requirements with the court before filing.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client confidentiality consent and engagement-letter provisions (GRPC 1.6, 1.5). Engagement-letter language disclosing AI tool use and confidentiality protections; written consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform.

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