Kentucky: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Kentucky firm: KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024) is the Kentucky Bar’s guidance on AI. It is advisory, having been formally adopted by the Board of Governors under SCR 3.530, which “provides that formal opinions are advisory only.” It answers yes to whether a lawyer must review AI-assisted court submissions for accuracy, advises that prompts should not identify the client, requires written client agreement before AI expenses are charged, answers yes to whether partners, managers, and supervising lawyers must ensure AI policies and training are in place, and states that “it is the responsibility of each attorney to best determine how AI will be used within their law firm and then to establish an AI policy.” Kentucky has no statewide AI filing rule, but three circuit local rules address AI: the 56th Judicial Circuit requires filers to verify AI-generated content, and the 5th Judicial Circuit’s family courts and Campbell Family Court Division III require an AI certification.

Start with: a written AI use policy (the KBA publishes sample policies), a citation verification log for any matter using AI in research or drafting, and a vendor due-diligence record for each AI tool in use.

Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457

Citation: Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-457, “The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) in the Practice of Law” (issued March 15, 2024). Primary source PDF.

Status: Formal ethics opinion, adopted by the KBA Board of Governors under SCR 3.530, which “provides that formal opinions are advisory only.” The opinion states that “in the interim it is intended that this Opinion will provide some practical guidance while the Task Force explores multiple AI issues and whether amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct are appropriate.” As of 2026-09-30, the KBA ethics opinions index runs through E-458, which does not address AI.

What it says

• Competence (SCR 3.130(1.1)). “Attorneys have a continuing ethical responsibility to maintain competence in their law practice, and reliance upon technology to do so is just another aspect of the competency requirement.” Lawyers “need to be aware that not using an available AI tool may constitute a failure to meet the lawyer’s duty of attaining and maintaining competence under Rule 1.1.”
• Client disclosure (SCR 3.130(1.4)). “There is no ethical duty to disclose the rote use of AI generated research for a client’s matter unless the work is being outsourced to a third party; the client is being charged for the cost of AI; and/or the disclosure of AI generated research is required by Court Rules.”
• Confidentiality (SCR 3.130(1.6)). A lawyer “should review the ‘terms of use’ of any AI product and the provider’s disclaimers” to understand whether the provider shares or uses inputs, and “should take care that any information inputted into a generative AI product does not identify the client or the nature of the representation.” Hypotheticals are permissible only “as long as there is no reasonable likelihood that anyone will be able to determine who the client is or what the client matter involves.” “If an outside AI service will be receiving information protected by the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under SCR 3.130(1.6), then obtaining client consent is required.”
• Fees (SCR 3.130(1.5)). The lawyer’s charge “must be adjusted to recognize the reduced legal work devoted to a client’s matter when there is a successful result by virtue of using AI.” If the client is to bear AI expenses, “the client’s written consent must first be obtained,” and “the costs of AI training and keeping abreast of AI developments should not be charged to clients.”
• Candor (SCR 3.130(3.3)). The opinion answers yes to whether an attorney using AI has an ethical duty “to review court rules and procedures as they relate to the use of AI, and to review all submissions to the Court that utilized Generative AI to confirm the accuracy of the content of those filings,” citing Mata v. Avianca as an example of sanctions.
• Supervision (SCR 3.130(5.1)). Partners, managers, and supervising lawyers have a responsibility to ensure that AI policies and training are in place; “it is the responsibility of each attorney to best determine how AI will be used within their law firm and then to establish an AI policy that addresses the benefits and risks associated with AI products.”

Rules cited

The opinion lists SCR 3.130(1.1) and Comments (2) and (6); (1.4); (1.5)(a) and (b); (1.6); (1.8); (1.9)(c)(1); (3.1); (3.3); (4.1); (5.1)(b); (5.8); and (8.4). SCR 3.130 contains the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notable gaps

The opinion defines AI and notes that research tools’ citation-checking functions already employ it, but it offers no engagement-letter language and no guidance on disclosure to courts beyond following court rules. It does not address Kentucky’s advertising rules.

KBA resources since E-457

The KBA’s Attorney AI Library points to E-457 and offers detailed and concise sample AI policies. The library’s materials carry a disclaimer that they are illustrative and not legal advice.

What federal courts in Kentucky require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, neither Kentucky federal district has an AI general order or local rule. The E.D. Ky. general orders, the W.D. Ky. current general orders, and the Joint Local Rules as amended in August 2026 contain no AI provision. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Individual judges may address AI in a particular case; for example, the show-cause order in Patel v. Patel (W.D. Ky. 2026) cited E-457.

What Kentucky state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide AI rule or order applies to filings; the Supreme Court administrative orders index through Order 2026-33 contains none on AI.

At the circuit level, the 56th Judicial Circuit’s local rules (Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon, and Trigg Counties), approved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky on December 2, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, include a rule on AI in court submissions. It cautions lawyers and pro se litigants that generative AI “sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content,” does not prohibit AI use, and requires them to “review and verify computer-generated content.” It requires no disclosure. The Kentucky Court of Justice publishes the rules with the approving order.

Two family-court rules adopted in 2026 go further and require a certification when AI is used:

• 5th Judicial Circuit Family Court (Crittenden, Union, and Webster Counties). Local Rule 203(E), in rules the Supreme Court of Kentucky approved on January 13, 2026, provides that “All pleadings, motions, and documentation which include any material generated by artificial intelligence (AI) shall also include the following certification language within the document.” The certification states that AI-drafted language “will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being before it is submitted to the Court” and that “Failure to comply will result in sanctions by the Court.” The Kentucky Court of Justice publishes the rules with the approving order.
• Campbell Family Court, Division III (17th Judicial Circuit). Rule 11, signed by Judge Abigail E. Voelker on March 6, 2026 and approved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky on March 16, 2026, provides that “Parties shall not file pleadings drafted (partially or in whole) by generative artificial intelligence unless a certification is filed with the Court” stating that AI-drafted language will be checked for accuracy by a human being. Failure to comply “will result in a show cause hearing before this Court,” and “any attorney failing to comply, will be reported to the Office of Bar Counsel.” The Kentucky Court of Justice publishes the rules with the approving order.

The three rules were located in the local rules on the Kentucky Court of Justice’s rules-of-practice page, which carries many of the rules only as image scans.

What AI-related rules are pending in Kentucky?

No AI rule amendment is pending before the Supreme Court of Kentucky as of 2026-09-30. The KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence remains active: a Court of Appeals judge’s court biography describes him as chairing its Judiciary Subcommittee. No final Task Force report has been published.

2025 Ky. Acts Ch. 66 (SB 4), signed March 24, 2025, governs AI use by state government agencies and directs the Commonwealth Office of Technology to create an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee. It imposes no attorney-conduct obligations. No 2026 bill on attorney AI use or court filings was enacted.

How do malpractice carriers in Kentucky treat AI use?

Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky (LMICK) has published AI risk-management articles. Its 2026 article on a federal court’s warning advises lawyers to “independently verify every case citation, quotation, statute, and legal proposition generated by AI before filing any document” and to “develop and enforce a written office AI-use policy addressing confidentiality, verification procedures, and supervisory responsibilities.” These are risk-management recommendations, not coverage positions. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located.

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

No AI application questionnaire published by LMICK was located as of 2026-09-30. Firms that want to be ready for questions may wish to have documentation mapped to E-457: an AI policy, confidentiality and vendor review records, client consent records where confidential information goes to an outside AI service, written agreements for any AI expenses charged, and citation verification records. Confirm specific application items directly with LMICK or the firm’s broker.

What documentation should a Kentucky firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, who may authorize new tools, prohibited uses (including entering client-identifying information into non-approved platforms), and supervision. E-457 places on each attorney the responsibility “to establish an AI policy that addresses the benefits and risks associated with AI products,” and the KBA’s sample policies are a starting point.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log for any matter where AI is used in research or drafting, documenting that the attorney reviewed and verified all AI-generated citations and legal assertions before filing, consistent with E-457’s candor answer and, where a local AI rule applies, that rule.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Court-specific AI rule check at the opening of every matter, in federal court and in circuits with local AI rules.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence record for each approved AI platform, documenting review of the vendor’s terms of use, data retention, and information-sharing practices before use, as E-457 describes under SCR 3.130(1.6).
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting that lawyers and staff have reviewed E-457 and the firm’s AI policy.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions addressing client consent when an outside AI service will receive confidential information, and written agreement before AI expenses are charged.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: billing partner) Billing practice for AI. Obtain written client consent before charging AI tool costs, do not charge AI training costs to clients, and adjust fees where AI reduced the legal work, as E-457 describes under SCR 3.130(1.5).
2. (Owner: managing partner) KBA Task Force watch and periodic review. Monitor for any new KBA opinion or rule amendment, and refresh the firm’s AI policy and vendor records on a stated cadence.

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