Hawaii: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 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 a declaration when a filing relies on unverified sources such as AI. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s Committee on AI and the Courts reported in December 2025 that a proposed state-court AI disclosure order and declaration is under consideration by the Supreme Court. Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals has already sanctioned an attorney under Rule 11 for a fabricated citation. 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.

Chief Justice’s January 2025 letter and the Committee on AI and the Courts final report

The Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued no formal written ethics opinion specifically addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence; its formal opinions in effect run through No. 50, none on AI. 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, which describes itself as providing “initial guidance” to Hawaii State Bar Association members. The letter pointed the bar to existing Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct and to ABA Formal Opinion 512. It did not create new obligations. The Supreme Court’s Committee on AI and the Courts, in its December 2025 final report (which reproduces the letter as Appendix 4), took the same view of existing rules, stating that HRCP Rule 11, “as it is written and applied, is broad enough to provide adequate safeguards.”

Status: Informal, non-binding guidance. Neither the letter nor the report is a rule or an ethics opinion; the report’s proposed AI disclosure order remains under consideration (see Pending activity). 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 added the technology language to Comment [6] by amendment of August 18, 2021, effective January 1, 2022.
• 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 Assistants), 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 the district’s four active judges. Few federal districts have a district-wide AI filing rule; the Northern District of Texas’s Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), for example, requires a brief prepared using generative AI to disclose that fact on its first page. 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.

Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi also posts chambers AI Guidelines on her judge page: any party who uses a generative AI tool to prepare a filing “must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used,” and must certify “that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.” Failure to disclose and certify “may result in the imposition of sanctions.” As of September 2026, the court’s general orders include no AI order beyond General Order 23-1.

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 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.

In federal court, a judge sitting by designation in the District of Hawaii ordered counsel to show cause over fabricated citations in Mau v. City and County of Honolulu (2026). The Keaau order shows the supervision risk: the fabricated citation entered the filing through delegated drafting, 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. Then-Associate Justice Vladimir Devens (now Chief Justice) 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.
• Committee members drafted a proposed form, “Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools and Declaration about Use of Artificial Intelligence,” that would require any attorney or self-represented party filing a document to include a declaration that AI was used in drafting it and that the party has verified the accuracy of the legal authorities cited. The proposal was “based in part on orders currently used by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi and other federal courts,” and the report states it “is currently under consideration by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.”
• For judges and judiciary staff, the committee’s Policies Subcommittee drafted the Hawaii State Judiciary Guardrails for the Acceptable Use of AI Tools and Platforms, which Chief Justice Recktenwald approved and which were forwarded to all Judiciary staff. The guardrails do not bind private practitioners but reflect the court’s own operating standards.
• The report’s formal recommendations to the Supreme Court concern a committee to oversee the Judiciary’s AI technology, continued education of the legal community with the HSBA and others, and continuing the committee.

The proposed disclosure order is not a rule. As of September 2026, no implementing order appears among the Supreme Court’s rule amendments. Firms filing in Hawaii state courts may wish to document AI use as though a declaration requirement could take effect.

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 newsletter covers new resources as they ship.