Hawaii: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Hawaii firm: No state-level AI disclosure rule exists yet, but the trajectory is toward one. Since General Order 23-1 (November 14, 2023), the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has required AI-source disclosure. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s Committee on AI and the Courts recommended in December 2025 that the Court adopt a parallel state-court rule. Multiple Hawaii attorneys have already faced sanctions or grievance complaints for AI-hallucinated citations under existing rules. The safe position today is to operate as though the federal disclosure standard applies statewide.

Start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and a “Reliance on Unverified Source” declaration template for District of Hawaii federal filings.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

The Hawaii State Bar Association’s Disciplinary Board has issued no formal written ethics opinion specifically addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence. Disciplinary Board practice restricts formal written opinions to questions of broad applicability. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel addresses individual fact patterns through informal oral guidance. See the Disciplinary Board’s Legal Ethics Advice for Hawaii Lawyers page.

In place of a formal opinion, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald transmitted a letter dated January 21, 2025 to HSBA president Mark Murakami. The letter pointed the bar to existing Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct and to ABA Formal Opinion 512. It did not create new obligations. Any future state-court AI disclosure obligation is described in Section “Pending activity” below. Today the operative authority is the HRPC plus the federal District of Hawaii order.

Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct that govern AI use today

No AI-specific opinion exists. These Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct govern:

• HRPC Rule 1.1 (Competence), including Comment 6, which requires lawyers to keep abreast of “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Hawaii adopted the technology competence comment effective January 1, 2014.
• HRPC Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), which constrains uploading client information to AI tools whose data retention or training practices have not been vetted.
• HRPC Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), which prohibits false statements of law and requires correction. Submitting AI-generated citations without verification is the direct exposure path.
• HRPC Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance), which requires supervisory procedures over delegated work, including AI-assisted work.
• Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, which the Supreme Court committee identified as already “broad enough” to address AI abuse in state-court filings.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (issued July 29, 2024) is the national framework that the Chief Justice’s January 2025 letter and the Supreme Court committee’s report both reference. See ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512. Without a state-specific opinion, Op 512 carries persuasive weight in Hawaii.

What federal courts in Hawaii require for AI use in filings

On November 14, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii adopted General Order 23-1, signed by all four judges of the district. Only one other federal district (Nebraska) has a comparable district-wide AI disclosure requirement. Counsel or pro se parties submitting an AI-generated filing must concurrently file a declaration captioned “Reliance on Unverified Source.” The same requirement reaches materials produced by persons compensated to create content not tailored to specific cases (collectively “unverified sources”). The declaration discloses the reliance and verifies that the material is not fictitious. The order expressly does not apply where all sources can be located on Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg Law. Filings whose citations are independently confirmed through standard research databases need no declaration.

What Hawaii state courts require for AI use in filings

Hawaii state courts have not issued a mandatory AI disclosure rule or statewide standing order applicable to attorneys. Individual judges may sanction AI misuse case-by-case under HRCP Rule 11. Firms should check the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each state-court matter.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Hawaii?

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has confirmed a growing pattern of complaints against Hawaii lawyers for AI misuse. Three documented matters arose in 2025.

First, a Maui Circuit Court brief reportedly filed by a Case Lombardi associate cited fabricated cases. Per Honolulu Civil Beat reporting, the trial court accepted an apology and imposed no sanctions. No public court order memorializes the matter.

Second, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a published order in Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence, No. CAAP-24-0000494 (Haw. Ct. App. May 15, 2025). The court imposed a $100 personal sanction under HRCP Rule 11(b)(2) on attorney James D. DiPasquale. He had signed a motion to dismiss whose memorandum cited a fabricated “Greenspan v. Greenspan” decision drafted by a per diem attorney. Counsel denied personal AI use. The court adjudicated solely under Rule 11 without finding AI was the source.

Third, a Hawaii Circuit Court matter had sanctions under consideration as of the Supreme Court committee’s December 2025 report. The common thread across these matters: fabricated or unverified citations entered filings without verification. Several errors arose through delegation to associates or per-diem attorneys without adequate supervision, implicating HRPC Rules 3.3 and 5.3.

What AI-related rules are pending in Hawaii?

The Hawaii Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (SCMF-24-0000305) was established in April 2024 by Chief Justice Recktenwald. Associate Justice Vladimir Devens and First Circuit Judge John Tonaki co-chaired the committee. Its final report was filed on December 16, 2025. Principal conclusions:

• Existing rules, including HRCP Rule 11, are “broad enough to provide adequate safeguards” against AI abuse in state-court filings.
• Separately, the Court should consider adopting a disclosure rule mirroring the federal district’s approach. Any attorney or self-represented party filing an AI-assisted document would file a concurrent declaration. That declaration would confirm AI was used and that all cited authorities have been verified for accuracy.
• Internally, the committee adopted “Hawaii State Judiciary Guardrails for the Acceptable Use of AI Tools and Platforms” for judges and judiciary staff. Those guardrails are not binding on private practitioners but reflect the court’s own operating standards.

The recommendation is advisory. No implementing Supreme Court order has issued. Firms filing in Hawaii state courts should document AI use as though the rule is already in effect. The committee’s recommendation signals the Court’s direction.

How do malpractice carriers in Hawaii treat AI use?

Hawaii does not mandate legal malpractice insurance for attorneys. ALPS is a notable carrier in the Hawaii market, alongside national carriers (Hanover, AmTrust, CUNA Mutual). No Hawaii-specific carrier has published AI-focused underwriting criteria in materials reviewed for this entry. Standard LPL policies do not explicitly address AI-generated errors. Coverage may turn on whether the carrier treats unsupervised AI use as a “professional service.” Confidentiality breaches from uploads to public-facing AI tools may fall outside the LPL policy and into cyber liability territory. Supervision failures involving delegated AI use, illustrated by the documented Hawaii matters, are a foreseeable carrier focus.

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

No Hawaii-writing carrier has published specific AI application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The reference points are familiar. Brokers will cite HRPC Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 5.3. They will also cite HRCP Rule 11 and ABA Formal Opinion 512. Federal practitioners should expect questions about District of Hawaii General Order 23-1. Plan on producing five artifacts: a written AI use policy; vendor due diligence records; citation verification logs for court filings; a supervision log showing licensed-attorney review of AI-assisted work product; and a District of Hawaii “Reliance on Unverified Source” declaration template for federal filings. If the Hawaii Supreme Court issues an order implementing the December 2025 committee recommendation during the renewal cycle, a state-court disclosure workflow becomes affirmatively required. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Hawaii firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, what client information may or may not be input, citation verification, supervision, and procedures for federal-court disclosure. Required by implication of HRPC Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 5.3. Identify who may use AI tools and when licensed-attorney review is required.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for every court filing, confirming that each cited authority was independently located in Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg Law before submission. This satisfies the District of Hawaii General Order 23-1 exception and demonstrates HRPC Rule 3.3 compliance.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) District of Hawaii disclosure workflow including a pre-formatted “Reliance on Unverified Source” declaration for any federal filing where AI contributed to drafting and not all sources are verifiable through standard research databases.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool receiving client data: terms of service, data retention policy, training opt-out status, and review date. Supports HRPC Rule 1.6 obligations.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records showing review of the firm’s AI policy, the HRPC provisions above, and ABA Formal Opinion 512. Record the date of training, attendees, and materials covered.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate, per-diem, and staff AI use. Document attorney review of AI-assisted work product before delivery or filing. Documented Hawaii matters illustrate the senior-attorney exposure under HRPC Rule 5.3 when delegated AI work goes unverified.

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 recording which tools were used, what was input, and what verification steps were completed before filing or delivery.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule tracking Hawaii Supreme Court orders and Disciplinary Board announcements, given the pending recommendation from the December 2025 committee report.

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