Georgia: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a Georgia firm: Georgia has no statewide AI rule, but mandatory AI requirements now exist courtroom by courtroom: several Fulton County Superior Court and DeKalb State Court judges, and some N.D. Ga. judges, require AI-use disclosure or sworn certifications. The State Bar’s Generative AI Toolkit is the operative informal guidance. Enforcement is escalating: the Court of Appeals raised its penalty cap for frivolous civil appeals and motions to $10,000 in September 2025, and in May 2026 the Supreme Court of Georgia suspended a prosecutor’s privilege to practice before it for six months over unverified AI-generated citations. 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.

State Bar of Georgia Generative AI Toolkit

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 (current version “Last Updated July 9, 2026”), issued through the Law Practice Management Program with the State Bar’s special committee on artificial intelligence, now titled Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology. It calls itself a “living” document and states that it is for guidance only and “should not be substituted for qualified expert opinions, ethics advisory opinions, rulings or opinions by courts of competent jurisdiction.” The committee chose the toolkit “in lieu of developing and promoting a formal advisory opinion.”

Status: Non-binding informal guidance and a self-described “living” document; check the “Last Updated” date on the current version before relying on it.

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. Under Rule 1.6, “A lawyer should not input confidential client information into any generative AI solution that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections”; the toolkit suggests vetting vendor privacy policies and considering 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 have reported. The State Bar’s special committee, which first met on October 9, 2024 and is now chaired by Heather Kuhn, delivered a final report to the Board of Governors dated June 7, 2025. It recommended promoting adoption of a proposed comment 6 to GRPC 1.1 on technology competence, which it found “particularly critical,” an amendment to GRPC 1.6(c), an amendment to Rule 5.3 “to add reference to services, tools, and output,” and a comment to Rule 7.1 on chatbot disclosure. The report is published as Appendix D to the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts report, which that committee, chaired by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, submitted on July 3, 2025. As of September 2026 the Supreme Court’s rule amendments page shows no adoption of the proposed GRPC changes. See “Pending activity” below.

Georgia has not adopted the ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 technology competence language (“benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”). Comment [6] to Georgia Rule 1.1 in the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct on gabar.org reads only: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education.” The underlying Rule 1.1 competence duty still applies.

What federal courts in Georgia require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order or local rule has been adopted in N.D. Ga., M.D. Ga., or S.D. Ga. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Several N.D. Ga. judges address AI in their civil standing orders or case instructions:

• Judge Tiffany R. Johnson (civil standing order, sec. 3.A, modified September 1, 2026): counsel and pro se parties “must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to prepare documents filed and submitted to the Court” by filing a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence, with a penalty-of-perjury certification under Rule 11; noncompliance may bring sanctions up to dismissal or default judgment. See the tracker entry.
• Judge Steve C. Jones (case instructions, sec. II.F, revised August 2026): the same disclosure and certification requirement for AI use “in any capacity,” plus a bar on inputting information subject to a protective order into any AI tool. See the tracker entry.
• Judge Steven D. Grimberg (civil standing order, sec. V.c, February 10, 2026): no disclosure requirement, but “You can use whatever AI tools you like, but only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome,” including “each and every lawyer listed on the signature block.” See the tracker entry.

Judge Jean-Paul Boulee’s civil standing order, which some secondary sources describe as addressing AI, contains no AI provision. The M.D. Ga. posts non-binding guidance for pro se litigants warning that AI “does not alleviate a party’s responsibility for making sure that all facts and legal authorities cited in court filings are accurate” (tracker entry). At the opening of each federal matter, firms may wish to review the assigned judge’s standing orders directly.

What Georgia state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide AI-specific rule applies to attorneys in Georgia state court, but the appellate courts have tightened sanctions for false citations. By order of December 12, 2025, effective January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court amended its Rule 6(2) so that a frivolous-appeal penalty may rest on a filing that “contains assertions of material facts or citations to authority that are false or unsupported by the record or caselaw.” A Court of Appeals rules amendment adopted effective September 9, 2025 raised the Rule 7(e)(2) penalty cap from $2,500, the cap applied in Shahid (below), to $10,000, and the current rules, effective March 26, 2026, still allow a penalty “not to exceed $10,000.” The rule limits the penalty to “any civil case in which there is a direct appeal, application for discretionary appeal, application for interlocutory appeal, or motion that is determined to be frivolous.”

Individual trial judges have adopted AI orders. In Fulton County Superior Court, Judge Craig L. Schwall, Sr. (July 2025) and Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe (June 2026) require a sworn certification disclosing any AI used to prepare, draft, or review a filing and verifying its citations. Other Fulton Superior judges have posted AI provisions of their own: Judge Alice Benton (July 2025) and Judge David H. Emadi (July 2026) use the Schwall text; Judge Melynee Leftridge (November 2025) and Judge Scott McAfee (civil cases, April 2026) require a sworn disclosure of AI use; Judge Thomas A. Cox, Jr. and Judge Belinda E. Edwards warn that hallucinated citations may be stricken or sanctioned; and Judge Robert C. I. McBurney (Family Division 2) states that AI use need not be disclosed but that errors will be attributed to the filer. In DeKalb State Court, Judge Ana María Martinez (Division 6) (October 2025) and Judge Yolanda R. Mack (Division 3) (November 2025) impose the same kind of sworn certification in civil and criminal cases. Other courts have not been systematically surveyed; firms may wish to check local rules and chambers practices when filing.

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

Citation: Shahid v. Esaam, No. A25A0196 (Ga. Ct. App., First Division, June 30, 2025).

In a divorce matter, attorney Diana Lynch cited fictitious cases in the husband’s trial-court response, two of which made it into the trial court’s order, and in her appellate brief “provided 11 bogus case citations out of 15 total,” one in support of a frivolous request for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing. It imposed “a $2,500 frivolous motion penalty on Lynch, which is the most the law allows, pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 7 (e) (2).” The opinion noted Chief Justice John Roberts’ observation in his 2023 Year-End Report that commonly used AI applications can be prone to “hallucinations.”

Significance for Georgia firms: The court imposed the maximum penalty then available alongside vacatur of the trial-court order. The Court of Appeals has since raised that cap to $10,000.

Payne v. State (Ga. 2026)

Citation: Payne v. State, No. S26A0459, 324 Ga. 305 (Ga. May 5, 2026) (Land, J.).

In a murder appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the State’s trial-court briefing and the proposed order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial, which the trial court adopted, contained fictitious or misattributed citations. The Clayton County assistant district attorney acknowledged that “the case citations generated by artificial intelligence software were not independently verified.” The Court wrote that “we have no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys,” but that citing nonexistent or unsupportive cases violates its rules. It admonished the prosecutor and the district attorney’s office, suspended her “privilege to practice before the Supreme Court of Georgia for six months” (reinstatement requires 12 additional CLE hours), and vacated and remanded the new-trial order. According to the opinion, the district attorney apologized and reported internal disciplinary action. The Court noted that its order does not affect any State Bar disciplinary proceeding; no public State Bar outcome has been found. See the tracker entry.

What AI-related rules are pending in Georgia?

State Bar special committee rule proposals: The June 7, 2025 final report’s proposals (comment 6 to GRPC 1.1, GRPC 1.6(c), Rule 5.3, and a Rule 7.1 comment) have not been adopted by the Supreme Court as of September 2026.

Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts: The report submitted July 3, 2025 recommends a “human-in-the-loop” approach, lists AI-powered jury selection and “black box” sentencing algorithms among “Current generally unacceptable uses” (not recommended under current conditions), recommends evaluating data security and cybersecurity protocols and training for judicial officers, includes interim court AI use policy considerations (Appendix B), and proposes a three-year roadmap (Appendix A). Per Judicial Council materials, the ad hoc committee has transitioned to a subcommittee of the Council’s Standing Committee on Technology.

SB 540 (AI companion chatbots): Signed May 11, 2026 as Act 518, effective July 1, 2027. It regulates “AI companion chatbots” designed to simulate a sustained human or human-like relationship, and excludes, among others, “A customer-service chatbot that either does not sustain a relationship across multiple interactions or is not designed to elicit emotional attachment.” The Attorney General enforces it, with civil penalties of up to $10,000 per knowing violation. A typical law-firm intake chatbot likely falls outside the definition, but firms deploying relationship-style AI tools may wish to review it.

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) Rule monitoring log tracking the State Bar special committee’s GRPC proposals, the Judicial Council technology subcommittee, and new judge-level AI orders. Documented prompt awareness of new rules 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 matter, review the assigned judge’s standing orders: in N.D. Ga., for example, Judges Tiffany R. Johnson and Steve C. Jones require a sworn Disclosure of Use of AI; in state court, several Fulton County Superior Court divisions (among them Schwall, Ellerbe, Benton, Emadi, Leftridge and McAfee) and DeKalb State Court (Martinez, Mack) divisions require sworn AI certifications or disclosures.
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 newsletter covers new resources as they ship.