Kansas: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a Kansas firm: Kansas has no KBA ethics opinion yet, but enforcement is already live, and a Kansas Supreme Court Ad Hoc AI Committee is charged with recommending policies for AI use by attorneys and the public. If you file in Shawnee County, Rule 3.125 requires a first-page AI disclosure and accuracy certification on every AI-assisted filing. If you file in Johnson County, Civil Rule 3.7 requires a certification on every filing, stating either that no generative AI was used or which tool was used and that every citation was independently verified. If you file in federal court, the District of Kansas Standing Order 26-01 makes you personally responsible for every word, regardless of AI origin.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and training records for attorneys and staff.

No formal KBA opinion (ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority)

Citation: As of September 2026, no Kansas Bar Association Ethics Advisory Committee opinion on attorney use of generative AI has been located (the KBA does not publish a public index of its opinions). The most authoritative framework available is ABA Formal Opinion 512 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, July 29, 2024).

Status: ABA formal opinions are non-binding in Kansas. They are persuasive authority. Kansas attorneys are bound by the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, which the Kansas Supreme Court administers. KRPC rules most directly implicated by AI use are KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.6 (confidentiality), 3.3 (candor), 5.1 (supervisory responsibility), and 5.3 (nonlawyer assistance).

What Opinion 512 requires (mandatory language)

• A lawyer must understand how a specific generative AI tool works, including whether it is “self-learning” (whether inputs are used to train the model).
• Before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning tool whose output could disclose it, a lawyer must obtain the client’s informed consent.
• Before submitting materials to a court, a lawyer must review AI outputs, “including analysis and citations to authority,” and correct errors.
• Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies on the firm’s permissible use of generative AI, and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance.
• A lawyer who bills hourly “must bill for their actual time”; charging the same flat fee when an AI tool makes the work much faster may be unreasonable under Rule 1.5.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• Read and understand the terms of use, privacy policy, and related contractual terms of any AI tool before using it.
• When vetting an AI vendor, consider the diligence steps earlier ABA opinions describe for outside providers, such as reference checks, security review, and confidentiality agreements.
• Consider whether a specific court order or client agreement requires disclosure that AI was used; Opinion 512 does not impose a general client disclosure duty.

What federal courts in Kansas require for AI use in filings

District of Kansas Standing Order 26-01: The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued Standing Order 26-01 on January 28, 2026, signed by Chief U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes. Per the order, “Litigants are responsible for the content of their own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or portions of court filings.” Litigants are also “responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool.” That responsibility extends to “citations to legal authority, quotations, paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, factual and procedural backgrounds, and the like.” The order authorizes the court to sua sponte strike noncompliant filings. Available sanctions include monetary fines, disciplinary referrals, disqualification, filing restrictions, or dismissal. It also reserves the court’s discretion to require sworn AI-disclosure statements in any case. Such statements identify the AI tool used and the AI-generated portions, and certify personal verification of each cited authority. See the tracker entry for D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01.

What Kansas state courts require for AI use in filings

Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125 (Third Judicial District): Effective June 14, 2024, Rule 3.125 governs pleadings using generative AI in Shawnee County (Topeka). When any portion of a pleading or other paper has been drafted using generative AI, the filing attorney or pro se litigant must do four things. First, check all AI-generated language for accuracy “using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.” Second, clearly mark the first page in writing that the document contains AI-generated content. Third, provide the disclosure to the court and to all opposing parties at the time of filing. Fourth, include a certification on the document that accuracy was checked. Per the court, “AI systems may not be factually or legally trustworthy sources of information without human verification.” Violations may result in sanctions. See the tracker entry for Shawnee County Rule 3.125.

Johnson County District Court Civil Rule 3.7 (Tenth Judicial District): Effective June 1, 2025, per the court’s notice of local rule updates, Civil Rule 3.7 requires “all litigants and/or their counsel” to place one of two alternative certifications immediately before the signature block of every filing. One certifies that no portion of the document “was drafted/prepared using Generative A.I.” The other names the AI tool used and certifies that the signer “has independently verified the accuracy of every citation to the law or to the record.” Unlike Shawnee County’s rule, the certification is required whether or not AI was used. A filing without it “may result in the pleading being stricken or rejected,” and material misrepresentations in the certification may lead to striking or sanctions. See the tracker entry.

As of September 2026, the Kansas Supreme Court has not adopted a statewide AI rule for filings. Other Kansas judicial districts may adopt their own local rules; firms should check local rules at the district-court level before filing in any county.

Notable enforcement: D. Kan. AI sanctions (February 2026)

In a February 2, 2026 memorandum and order in Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02324 (D. Kan.), Doc. 218 (CourtListener docket entry), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District of Kansas sanctioned the plaintiff’s attorneys under Rule 11 after two filings (a summary-judgment response and a Daubert response) contained nonexistent quotations, nonexistent and incorrect citations, and misrepresentations of cited authority. The attorney who drafted the filings had used ChatGPT to find case law. All five Lexos attorneys were publicly admonished, and four were fined a combined $12,000. The drafting attorney, Sandeep Seth, was fined $5,000, had his pro hac vice admission revoked, and was ordered to self-report to the disciplinary authorities where he is licensed and to file a certificate of internal procedures at his firm to ensure the accuracy of legal authority in future filings. Lead attorney Christopher M. Joe, who did not draft the filings, was fined $3,000 and ordered to file the same kind of certificate for his firm; Kenneth P. Kula was fined $3,000; Kansas local counsel David R. Cooper was fined $1,000; the fifth attorney was released from further sanctions. See the tracker entry for the case.

The significance for Kansas firms: the court sanctioned attorneys “proportionate to their role in the violations,” and fined Kansas local counsel even though, per the order, he “did not research or draft any of these filings.” Supervising attorneys and local counsel who sign AI-assisted filings are not insulated from Rule 11 sanctions.

What AI-related rules are pending in Kansas?

Kansas Supreme Court Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee: By Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 (dated February 27, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court created the Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee with an Internal Policy subcommittee and an External Policy subcommittee. The order tasks the committee with four mandates. First, study AI use as it relates to the judicial branch. Second, recommend internal policies for AI use by judicial-branch employees, including vendor and software vetting. Third, recommend policies for AI use by attorneys, parties, and other members of the public who use judicial-branch services. Fourth, act as the judicial branch’s AI governance body for reviewing and approving potential use cases. Once the committee reports, the Supreme Court may issue administrative orders or rule amendments with statewide binding effect. As of September 2026, the committee’s page lists its purpose and membership but no report, and no timeline for recommendations has been announced.

D. Kan. local rules: The District of Kansas adopted revised Rules of Practice effective April 1, 2026. They contain no AI provision, so the court’s AI duties remain in Standing Order 26-01, which the court still lists among its standing orders. As of 2026-09-28 the court’s local-rules page lists no pending AI-specific amendment.

Kansas legislation: Senate Substitute for HB 2313 (approved April 8, 2025; in force on publication in the statute book) bars use of an “artificial intelligence platform of concern” on state-agency devices and networks. The term covers DeepSeek and any AI model controlled, directly or indirectly, by a listed “country of concern” (including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia). The AI provision applies to state agencies and their employees, with exceptions for law enforcement and cybersecurity investigations; it does not reach private law firms. As of September 2026, no enacted Kansas law directly regulates attorney AI disclosure or AI use in court filings.

How do malpractice carriers in Kansas treat AI use?

ALPS is the KBA-endorsed malpractice carrier. ALPS’s published coverage framework requires that AI-assisted work involve genuine attorney professional judgment and verification; coverage may be denied if the insurer can show an attorney “blindly relied” on AI without verification. ALPS does not yet have AI-specific underwriting questionnaires or policy language documented in materials reviewed for this entry. The D. Kan. February 2026 sanctions order is the controlling Kansas factual pattern carriers will reference when evaluating AI-related claims.

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

ALPS has not published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. Carriers and brokers in Kansas will reference a combined substantive standard. The combined standard pulls from KRPC 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3. It also draws on ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority. For firms filing in those venues, verification duties under Standing Order 26-01 and Shawnee County Rule 3.125 round out the picture. Plan on producing a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records, and citation verification logs for court filings. Firms filing in Shawnee County or federal court should add the corresponding court-specific disclosure and verification artifacts. Firms should monitor the Kansas Supreme Court Ad Hoc AI Committee for recommendations that may convert advisory standards into binding statewide rules. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Kansas firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy identifying approved AI tools, permitted uses, prohibited uses (including uploading confidential client data to non-approved platforms), and verification requirements. Satisfies KRPC 5.1 and 5.3 supervision duties.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist that requires every legal citation be verified against a primary source before filing in any court. Directly addresses the D. Kan. February 2026 sanctions pattern and KRPC 3.3 candor duties.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific disclosure workflow covering Shawnee County Rule 3.125 (first-page disclosure and accuracy certification), Johnson County Civil Rule 3.7 (a pre-signature certification on every filing, whether or not AI was used), and D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 (pre-filing verification of every cited case and quoted text) for matters filed in those venues.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record for each approved AI tool: terms of service, data retention and deletion policies, opt-out or enterprise privacy settings, and date of review. Satisfies KRPC 1.6 confidentiality.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting that all lawyers and nonlawyer staff received training on AI risks, verification obligations, and the firm’s AI policy. Supports KRPC 5.1 and 5.3 compliance.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate and staff AI use under KRPC 5.1 and 5.3, including sign-off responsibilities for AI-assisted filings.

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 the AI tool used, the purpose, the responsible attorney, and confirmation that output was verified before use. Assists in responding to bar complaints or malpractice claims.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule to track the Kansas Supreme Court Ad Hoc AI Committee and update the firm’s AI policy within a reasonable window after any new Supreme Court order or KBA opinion.

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