Kentucky: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Kentucky firm: KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024) is operationally specific and is the operative standard, expressly labeled “interim” while the KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence continues its work. The opinion mandates verification of all AI-generated authorities before filing, prohibits identifying clients in AI prompts, and requires firms (including solo practitioners) to maintain written AI policies. Failing to verify AI output, safeguard client information, or supervise staff AI use are the conditions Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky flags as potentially coverage-limiting.

Start with: a written AI use policy, 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 (issued March 15, 2024; published in Bench & Bar Magazine May/June 2024 with a 30-day comment period). Primary source PDF.

Status: Formal ethics opinion, expressly issued as “interim” guidance while the KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence continues its work. Operative formal guidance unless superseded.

What it requires

• Competence (SCR 3.130(1.1), Comment 6): Attorneys have a continuing mandatory duty to keep abreast of AI developments. The opinion warns that failing to use an available AI tool “may constitute a failure to meet the lawyer’s duty of attaining and maintaining competence.”
• Confidentiality (SCR 3.130(1.6)): Lawyers must safeguard client information, must not identify the client in AI queries, and must avoid prompts from which a client could reasonably be identified. A hypothetical (“hypo prompt”) is permissible only if there is no reasonable likelihood that anyone could identify the client or the matter. Lawyers must understand how the AI provider handles, retains, and shares data.
• Candor and accuracy (SCR 3.130(3.3)): All AI-generated legal authorities submitted to courts must be verified for factual and legal accuracy before filing. The opinion expressly cites Mata v. Avianca as the predicate concern. Verification is mandatory, not a best practice.
• Fees (SCR 3.130(1.5)): If AI reduces the time and effort spent on a client matter, the attorney must consider reducing fees to reflect that reduction. Lawyers cannot charge clients for time spent learning AI tools (treated as overhead). Lawyers may charge clients for the cost of AI tools only if the client agrees in advance in writing.
• Supervision (SCR 3.130(5.1)): Law firms, including solo practitioners, must establish policies and procedures governing AI use by all lawyers and staff. Responsibility runs up the chain: partners and supervising attorneys must ensure ethical AI use by everyone they supervise.
• Client disclosure (SCR 3.130(1.4)): Routine AI-generated research does not require disclosure to the client. Three triggers require disclosure and informed consent: when work is outsourced to a third-party AI provider that will receive confidential information; when the client is being billed for AI tool costs; or when court rules require disclosure of AI use.

Rules cited

SCR 3.130(1.1) Comment 6, SCR 3.130(1.4), SCR 3.130(1.5), SCR 3.130(1.6), SCR 3.130(3.3), SCR 3.130(5.1), SCR 3.130(5.2), SCR 3.130(5.3). SCR 3.130 is Kentucky’s Supreme Court Rule enacting the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule numbers parallel the ABA Model Rules.

Notable gaps

E-457 is expressly interim while the KBA Task Force continues its work, so a superseding or supplemental opinion may arrive. The opinion does not define “AI” or “generative AI,” leaving open whether it covers AI legal research platforms (Westlaw AI, Lexis+ AI) the same way it covers general-purpose tools. It provides no guidance on AI disclosure in court filings absent a court rule, no guidance distinguishing AI-generated client-facing documents from internal research, and no engagement letter or client consent language templates.

What federal courts in Kentucky require for AI use in filings

As of this entry’s verification date, no district-wide AI standing order is in effect in either Kentucky federal district (E.D. Ky. or W.D. Ky.). The E.D. Ky. general orders page lists no AI-specific orders. Individual judge orders may apply; firms should review each assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of every federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What Kentucky state courts require for AI use in filings

No court-wide AI standing order is in effect for Kentucky state courts. The Kentucky Supreme Court administrative orders index shows 2024-2025 orders addressing electronic filing and IT acceptable use, none specific to AI in filings. Individual judges may issue their own standing orders; confirm against the assigned judge’s chambers practices before filing.

What AI-related rules are pending in Kentucky?

The KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence remains active. E-457 is expressly interim guidance issued while the Task Force continues its work, and a superseding or supplemental opinion may follow. No final Task Force report has been published as of this entry’s verification date. Monitor the KBA ethics opinions page for updates.

2025 Ky. Acts Ch. 66 (SB 4), signed by Governor Andy Beshear on March 24, 2025, governs AI use by Kentucky state government agencies and creates an AI Governance Committee within the Commonwealth Office of Technology. SB 4 imposes no attorney-conduct obligations but establishes a statutory AI definition that may inform future KBA guidance. Attorneys advising state agency clients on AI governance should be aware of its requirements.

How do malpractice carriers in Kentucky treat AI use?

Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky (LMICK) is the dominant LPL carrier for Kentucky firms. It has published multiple 2025-2026 AI risk articles recommending that all AI work product be reviewed and verified by a licensed attorney before client disclosure, consistent with E-457. Three failure modes are the conditions LMICK and other carriers flag as potentially coverage-limiting conduct: failure to verify AI outputs (SCR 3.130(3.3)), failure to safeguard confidential information (SCR 3.130(1.6)), and failure to supervise staff AI use (SCR 3.130(5.1)).

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

LMICK has not published a specific AI application questionnaire as of this entry’s date. Its published guidance points to E-457 as the substantive standard, so firms should produce documentation mapped to the opinion’s competence, confidentiality, candor, fees, supervision, and client-disclosure requirements. For federal court matters, firms should also be ready to show that the assigned judge’s standing orders were checked for AI-specific requirements at the opening of each matter. Because E-457 is expressly interim, firms should monitor for any superseding KBA Task Force opinion that could shift the standard mid-policy-period. Confirm specific application items directly with LMICK or your 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 protocols. Required by SCR 3.130(5.1); E-457 makes clear solo practitioners are not exempt.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log for any matter where AI is used in research or drafting, documenting that the attorney independently reviewed and verified all AI-generated citations and legal assertions before submission. SCR 3.130(3.3) and E-457 expressly cite Mata v. Avianca as the predicate concern.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check. Run it at the opening of every federal matter in E.D. Ky. and W.D. Ky. Document that the assigned judge’s standing orders were reviewed for AI-specific requirements.

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 data retention policy, confidentiality terms, and information-sharing practices before use. Addresses SCR 3.130(1.6), including the “hypo prompt” standard.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting that lawyers and staff have reviewed E-457 and the firm’s AI policy. Supports the supervision defense under SCR 3.130(5.1), (5.2), and (5.3).
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions addressing informed consent when AI tools process client information and could be deemed third-party service providers. Under SCR 3.130(1.4), E-457 requires disclosure and consent in that circumstance.

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 disclosures for AI tool costs. Obtain written client consent before charging AI tool costs. Adjust fees when AI demonstrably reduced time spent. Required by SCR 3.130(1.5) and E-457.
2. (Owner: managing partner) KBA Task Force watch and periodic review. Monitor for any superseding or supplemental ethics opinion that displaces E-457’s interim status. 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 monthly update covers new resources as they ship.