Georgia

pending

Summary

Georgia has no formal ethics opinion on AI and has not yet formally adopted the ABA technology competence comment to Rule 1.1. Active parallel committees (State Bar Special Committee on AI and Technology, October 2024; Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee, report submitted July 2025) signal imminent change. Enforcement has arrived ahead of formal rules: Shahid v. Esaam (Ga. Ct. App., June 2025) imposed a $2,500 sanction for AI-hallucinated citations.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

Shahid v. Esaam is the clearest local signal that hallucinated citations draw the maximum available sanction in Georgia appellate practice. The Clayton County DA incident received major statewide press coverage; carriers underwriting Georgia attorneys in appellate practice should note AI-hallucination risk is on the Chief Justice's radar.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Georgia has no formal ethics opinion on AI but has issued informal practice guidance through the State Bar’s Generative AI Toolkit (launched November 2025), a “living document” that maps existing GRPC rules to AI use. Georgia has not yet formally adopted the ABA technology competence comment to Rule 1.1. The Special Committee on AI and Technology (formed October 2024) and the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee (report July 2025) are studying formal rules; revisions to lawyer conduct rules are described in the Judicial Council report as “particularly critical.”

Enforcement has arrived ahead of formal rules. In Shahid v. Esaam (June 2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals imposed the maximum available $2,500 sanction on attorney Diana Lynch for filing 11 fabricated citations in 15. In March 2026, a Clayton County prosecutor’s brief to the Georgia Supreme Court contained 10+ AI-hallucinated citations, prompting a formal apology from the DA to Chief Justice Peterson.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Georgia firm: No mandatory AI rules yet, but the enforcement environment is active and the committee processes 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.

Last verified: April 24, 2026