Louisiana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Louisiana firm: Louisiana has no LSBA ethics opinion on AI. Act 250 (effective 2025-08-01) requires attorneys to “exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it to the court” (La. C.C.P. art. 371(C)) and adds pretrial procedures for exhibits suspected of being AI-generated (art. 1551(A)(5)). LSBA Public Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (2019) on technology vendors predates generative AI but addresses vendor review. Courts in Louisiana have responded to AI-fabricated citations with sanctions: Woodward Harbor (E.D. La. 2026-03-05, $1,000 against the drafting attorney personally plus 2 hours of generative AI CLE), the Fifth Circuit’s Fletcher opinion ($2,500 against Heather Hersh, 2026-02-18), and In re Kenney (La. App. 5 Cir. 2025, CLE and referral to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel).

Start with: a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records keyed to Opinion 19-RPCC-021, and a citation verification log for court filings.

LSBA Public Ethics Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (Lawyer’s Use of Technology)

Citation: Louisiana State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, Public Opinion 19-RPCC-021, “Lawyer’s Use of Technology” (2019-02-06). Primary source PDF.

Status: Public opinion of the LSBA Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. Under the opinion’s own terms, Committee opinions “are not binding on any person or tribunal,” including the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. It predates generative AI and remains the only technology opinion on the LSBA’s published-opinions index (checked September 2026).

What it says

• When using technology vendors “for things such as a cloud-based practice management system or for data storage, a lawyer must review and consider the service agreement.” The opinion lists vendor questions on safeguards, data ownership, government requests, return of data, and server location. Firms evaluating AI vendors may wish to consider the same questions.
• “Failure to use technology competently could put a law firm at risk both ethically and financially if the conduct falls below the applicable standard of care.”
• A lawyer’s supervisory duties under Rule 5.3 reach a “non-lawyer technology service provider or computer consultant.”
• Louisiana has no counterpart to ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment [8]: “While Louisiana does not have comments to its Rules, Rules 1.1(a) and 1.3 are straight-forward even without a specific technological competence/diligence requirement.”

Rules cited

• Rule 1.1(a) (Competence)
• Rule 1.3 (Diligence)
• Rule 1.4 (Communication)
• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality)
• Rule 1.15(a) (Safekeeping property)
• Rule 5.3 (Nonlawyer assistance), applied to technology vendors

Notable gaps

The opinion predates generative AI. It does not address AI tools, client disclosure of AI use, or billing for AI-assisted work.

Louisiana Supreme Court General Counsel Letter on AI

Citation: Letter from David Becker, General Counsel, Louisiana Supreme Court, to Shayna Sonnier, President, Louisiana State Bar Association (2024-01-22). Primary source PDF.

Status: Not a formal ethics opinion. The letter was written because “the Justices have asked me to share the following comments with you.” It states that “At the present time, the ethical and professional rules governing the bench and the Bar are robust and broad enough to cover the landscape of issues presented by AI in its current forms,” and that “attorneys practicing in Louisiana have always been ultimately responsible for their work-product and the pleadings they file in court.” It cites Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3, and 5.3 and Code of Civil Procedure articles 371 and 863, and says the Justices and staff “will continue to monitor the development of this technology and its impact on the legal profession to determine what future action or rule changes may be necessary or appropriate.” As of September 2026 the Court had adopted no AI-specific rule (Louisiana Supreme Court rule change orders, 2024 to 2026).

Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission Generative AI Guidelines

Citation: Supreme Court of Louisiana Technology Commission, Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines (October 3, 2025). Primary source PDF.

Status: Non-binding and addressed to the judiciary. The Chairman’s message (Justice John Michael Guidry) states that “the Code of Judicial Conduct applies fully to the use of all AI technologies.” For judicial use, the guidelines state that “it is imperative to issue a stern warning against the use of free LLM services.” As to lawyers, they note that “lawyers are responsible for the material they put before the court and have a professional obligation to ensure it is accurate and appropriate,” and that “it may be necessary at times to remind individual lawyers of their obligations and confirm that they have independently verified the accuracy of any research or case citations that have been generated with the assistance of GenAI.”

Louisiana Act 250 (2025)

Louisiana Act No. 250, 2025 Regular Session (HB 178, a revision of the Code of Civil Procedure on recommendation of the Louisiana State Law Institute), amends, among other provisions, La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 371 and 1551. Signed by the Governor on 2025-06-11; effective 2025-08-01 (bill history; enrolled text). Article 371 governs attorney conduct generally. Article 1551’s pretrial-conference provisions apply “In any civil action in a district court.” The 2026 Regular Session did not amend either article.

What the amended articles provide:

• Verification duty (art. 371(C)): “An attorney shall exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it to the court. If an attorney knew or should have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence that evidence was false or artificially manipulated, the offering of that evidence without disclosure of that fact shall be considered a violation of this Article.” Article 371(B) provides that an attorney “shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence, including evidence that is artificially generated or altered by any means.”
• Consequences (art. 371(D)): an attorney who violates the article “is subject to punishment for contempt of court, and such further disciplinary action as is otherwise provided by law.”
• Self-disclosure (art. 1551(A)(5)(b)): “If a party knows or has reason to know that its exhibits have been falsified, including having been generated by artificial intelligence or altered by any means, the party shall disclose this fact in accordance with Article 371.”
• Challenge procedure (art. 1551(A)(5)(a)): a party with “reasonable suspicion that an opposing party’s exhibits are falsified, including having been generated by artificial intelligence or altered by any means,” shall “raise these concerns at the pretrial conference or at a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of the exhibits.” Neither provision applies to demonstrative exhibits (art. 1551(A)(5)(c)).

Act 250 addresses evidence, not briefs. AI-drafted briefs with fabricated citations are addressed through Rule 3.3, Code of Civil Procedure article 863, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and the sanctions orders below.

What federal courts in Louisiana require for AI use in filings

As of September 2026, no court-wide AI order has been located for the Eastern, Middle, or Western District of Louisiana or for the three Louisiana bankruptcy courts. Individual judges’ orders may differ, so firms may wish to check chambers requirements in each matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 governs district-court filings.

In the Fifth Circuit, the court published a proposed amendment to 5th Cir. R. 32.3 on November 21, 2023. It would have required counsel and unrepresented filers to certify “that no generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting the document presented for filing,” or that all generated text “has been reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human” (proposal). The court announced on June 10, 2024 that it would not adopt the rule, so no certification is required. Its decision on the proposed rule instead reminds parties and counsel of their duties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B) and states: “‘I used AI’ will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.” In Fletcher v. Experian (2026), the court explained that it had concluded “existing rules were sufficient to deter misconduct related to generative AI use.”

What Louisiana state courts require for AI use in filings

As of September 2026, the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted no AI rule for attorney filings (rule change orders, 2024 to 2026). The October 2025 Technology Commission guidelines are addressed to judges. Louisiana appellate courts have applied existing rules to AI-fabricated citations: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed an article 863 sanction, ordered CLE, and referred counsel to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in In re Kenney (Oct. 23, 2025), and in Jacobs v. Timberlake (May 12, 2026) ordered counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Firms may wish to check district-court local rules at the opening of each matter.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Louisiana?

Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (5th Cir. 2026-02-18)

No. 25-20086, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a published opinion on an appeal from the Southern District of Texas (opinion). The court’s show-cause order enumerated “16 instances of fabricated quotations and 5 additional serious misrepresentations of law or fact” in a reply brief filed by Heather Hersh of the Jaffer & Associates law firm. The court determined that counsel “used artificial intelligence to draft a substantial portion, if not all, of her reply brief and then failed to verify the accuracy of the content generated,” and ordered her to pay $2,500 in sanctions to the court. It wrote that “Modern generative AI may be a new technology, but the same sanctions rules apply, and the rules we have are well equipped to handle these types of cases,” and that “Had Hersh accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions.” See the tracker entry.

Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville (E.D. La. 2026-03-05)

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Brandon S. Long (order). An opposition brief signed by attorneys from two Louisiana firms contained citations to at least eleven cases that “either did not exist or were incorrectly summarized, relied on, or quoted from.” Attorney John R. Walker “admitted to having used generative AI tools to assist in drafting the motion,” and the court found that he “alone was responsible for using generative AI technology to draft the opposition motion without verifying the accuracy of the citations.” It sanctioned Walker personally $1,000 and ordered him to attend 2 hours of CLE on generative AI by December 31, 2026. For the three other attorneys whose names appeared on the brief, the court found “judicial admonition is a sufficient sanction” and declined to sanction them, while reminding them that cosigners “must still comply with Rule 11.” See the tracker entry.

Other Louisiana matters in the tracker

Federal: Gentry v. Thompson (E.D. La. 2026), Kattom v. Bondi (W.D. La. 2026), Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers (W.D. La. 2026), In re Wise (Bankr. W.D. La. 2026), Lafontant v. Coolidge-CLK St. Germane (E.D. La. 2025), Lee v. R&R Home Care (E.D. La. 2025), and Nora v. M & A Transport (E.D. La. 2025). Pro se filings: Burches v. Equifax (E.D. La. 2026), Mills v. Rocket Mortgage (W.D. La. 2025), and Tijerino v. Spotify (E.D. La. 2025).

Louisiana civil law jurisdiction: a state-specific risk overlay

Louisiana’s private law derives from the civil law tradition, so AI tools may import common law reasoning where the Civil Code controls. They may misapply common law separate-property analysis to Louisiana’s matrimonial regime, omit or mishandle forced heirship under Civil Code article 1493, or draft authentic acts that miss the formal requirements of article 1833. Firms may wish to verify every AI output touching Louisiana substantive law, procedure, or document drafting against Louisiana primary sources.

How do malpractice carriers in Louisiana treat AI use?

Effective January 1, 2026, the LSBA endorsed Old Republic Lawyers Specialty Insurance (ORLSI) as the provider for the Lawyers Professional Liability Program administered by Gilsbar. As of September 2026, no Louisiana carrier has published AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry, and the LSBA announcement and the Gilsbar program materials do not mention AI. Act 250 and Opinion 19-RPCC-021 are the Louisiana texts most directly relevant to evidence verification and vendor diligence; how any carrier weighs them has not been published.

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

As of September 2026, no Louisiana carrier (including ORLSI) has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. Firms preparing for renewal may wish to have ready a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records, an Act 250 evidence-verification protocol, a citation-verification log for court filings, and training records. Firms may wish to confirm application items with their broker.

What documentation should a Louisiana firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering permitted and prohibited tools, a prohibition on inputting confidential client information into public cloud AI tools, supervision requirements, and billing integrity standards. Anchored in Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3 and the Louisiana Supreme Court General Counsel letter.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification protocol covering verification of every AI-generated citation, quotation, and factual assertion against primary sources before any court filing. Rule 3.3 and the Fletcher, Woodward Harbor, and Kenney orders illustrate the exposure.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Act 250 evidence verification protocol documenting the “reasonable diligence” steps taken under article 371(C) before offering evidence in a civil case, with a step confirming whether evidence was AI-generated or altered and a disclosure procedure under article 1551(A)(5).

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool: name, vendor, terms-of-service review, whether client data is used for model training, enterprise vs. consumer tier, and date of review. Opinion 19-RPCC-021’s vendor-diligence discussion (Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3) is a reasonable anchor; review of whether a vendor trains models on client data is the firm’s own addition.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting annual AI ethics training. The Woodward Harbor order’s reminder that cosigners “must still comply with Rule 11” illustrates exposure for attorneys who sign briefs they did not draft.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Louisiana civil law verification checklist confirming any AI-generated analysis touching Louisiana substantive law was verified against the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, or Code of Evidence rather than common law secondary sources.

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) AI incident log recording any AI errors discovered during verification, how caught, the correction made, and whether disclosure was required.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client disclosure and consent records for any matter where AI tools processed client confidential information.

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