Louisiana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Louisiana firm: Louisiana has no formal LSBA AI ethics opinion, but Act 250 (effective 2025-08-01) imposes a statutory verification duty for AI-generated evidence in all civil proceedings, and LSBA Public Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (2019) on technology competence applies directly to AI vendor diligence. Counsel who knew or should have known that evidence was AI-falsified faces contempt exposure and parallel disciplinary risk. The Walker sanctions order (E.D. La. 2026-02-25, $1,000 fine plus mandatory CLE) and the Fifth Circuit Fletcher order ($2,500 against Heather Hersh, 2026-02-18) set the enforcement baseline for AI-hallucinated citations.

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 (Technology Competence)

Citation: Louisiana State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, Public Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (2019-02-06). Primary source PDF.

Status: Formal LSBA public ethics opinion on technology competence. Predates generative AI but is the closest existing formal Louisiana ethics guidance applicable to AI tools. Non-binding as to AI specifically; operative as binding interpretive guidance on technology use.

What it requires

• Lawyers must understand the privacy policies and terms of service for any technology platform used with client data. The duty extends to AI platforms.
• Failure to use technology competently may violate professional standards under Rule 1.1.
• Supervision obligations under Rule 5.3 apply to technology vendors and service providers, including AI service providers.

Rules cited

• Rule 1.1 (Competence)
• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality)
• Rule 5.3 (Supervision of Non-Lawyer Assistants), applied to vendors

Notable gaps

The opinion predates generative AI and does not define competence for AI tools specifically, does not address client disclosure of AI use, and does not address billing ethics for AI-assisted work.

Louisiana Supreme Court General Counsel Letter on AI

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

Status: Non-binding advisory. Not a formal ethics opinion. The letter states that existing ethical and professional rules are “robust and broad enough to cover AI issues without adjustments” and that attorneys are “ultimately responsible for their work product and the pleadings they file in court.” The Court signaled it will continue to monitor and may take future action.

Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission Generative AI Guidelines

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

Status: Advisory only; primarily directed at judges but references obligations of counsel. The Commission directs lawyers to supervise AI output with active review and verification analogous to supervising a junior associate. It cites ABA Formal Opinion 512 and cautions specifically against free consumer AI tools in favor of enterprise-grade systems with security protocols.

Binding legislation: Louisiana Act 250 (2025)

Louisiana Act No. 250, 2025 Regular Session (formerly HB 178), amends La. Code Civ. Proc. Article 371. Signed by Governor Jeff Landry on 2025-06-11; effective 2025-08-01. Enrolled text. Binding on all civil practice in Louisiana courts.

Key requirements for counsel:

• Verification duty: Attorneys must exercise “reasonable diligence” to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it to the court.
• Self-disclosure obligation: A party that knows or has reason to know that its own exhibits have been falsified, including by AI generation or alteration, must disclose this.
• Challenge mechanism: A party with “reasonable suspicion” that opposing exhibits are AI-generated or falsified must raise the concern at the pretrial conference or at a pretrial admissibility hearing.
• Contempt exposure: Counsel who offer false or AI-manipulated evidence without disclosure face contempt and potential disciplinary action where counsel “knew or should have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

Act 250 applies to civil proceedings only and does not address AI-drafted briefs containing hallucinated citations; that gap is filled by Rule 3.3 and the Fletcher and Walker sanctions orders below.

What federal courts in Louisiana require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order has been adopted in EDLA, WDLA, or MDLA. Individual judge standing orders should be checked per matter. In November 2023, the Fifth Circuit proposed a mandatory AI certification rule. It expressly declined to adopt the rule as of June 2024, relying instead on FRAP Rule 46(b)(1)(B) and existing conduct obligations. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What Louisiana state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide Louisiana state-court AI rule applies to attorney filings. The October 2025 Technology Commission guidelines (above) are directed at judges. Firms should check parish-level standing orders 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. Attorney Heather Hersh of Jaffer & Associates PLLC filed a reply brief on appeal containing 16 fabricated quotations and 5 additional misrepresentations of law or fact, apparently AI-generated. After the panel issued a show-cause order, counsel responded evasively rather than acknowledging the conduct. The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction payable to the Fifth Circuit. It held that “AI can be a useful tool, but it does not reduce a lawyer’s professional duties,” and noted that the evasive response increased the sanction.

Walker matter (E.D. La. 2026-02-25)

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Brandon Long. Attorney John Walker of Jones Fussell (Covington, LA) filed an opposition brief drafted using ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI. The brief contained at least 11 fabricated, misquoted, or misapplied case citations. Walker admitted he never verified the AI-generated citations. Sanctions: $1,000 monetary fine and two hours of mandatory CLE on generative AI. Co-counsel received public admonishments for failing to review the brief. The court framed the misconduct as the failure to verify AI output before filing, not the use of AI itself. Reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Louisiana civil law jurisdiction: a state-specific risk overlay

Louisiana is the only U.S. state based on civil law. Tools trained predominantly on common law jurisdictions will frequently generate wrong analysis for Louisiana matters. AI may import common law “majority rule” reasoning where the Civil Code controls. It may misapply common law separate-property analysis to Louisiana’s matrimonial regime. It may omit or mishandle forced heirship under Civil Code Article 1493. AI-drafted authentic acts may fail Article 1833 formal requirements; electronic wills are not permitted. Every AI output touching Louisiana substantive law, procedure, or document drafting requires verification against Louisiana primary sources.

How do malpractice carriers in Louisiana treat AI use?

The LSBA endorsed malpractice carrier changed to Old Republic Lawyers Specialty Insurance (ORLSI) effective January 2026. No Louisiana carrier has published AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. Act 250 supplies a specific statutory standard for AI-generated evidence against which attorney conduct can be measured in malpractice claims, and Opinion 19-RPCC-021 supplies a Rule 1.6 vendor-diligence standard. The Fletcher and Walker orders show enforcement is active and that documentary evidence of verification is the firm’s defense.

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

No Louisiana carrier (including ORLSI as the new LSBA-endorsed carrier) has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard the carrier or broker will reference is the layered Louisiana stack. The stack: Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3; Opinion 19-RPCC-021 on vendor diligence; Act 250 on evidence verification; and the Fletcher and Walker sanctions orders on citation verification. Plan on producing 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. Confirm application items directly with your 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 LASC General Counsel letter.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification protocol mandating verification of every AI-generated citation, quotation, and factual assertion against primary sources before any court filing. Required by Rule 3.3 and the Fletcher and Walker sanctions orders.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Act 250 evidence verification protocol documenting the “reasonable diligence” steps taken before any civil court submission. Include a step confirming whether evidence was AI-generated or altered and a disclosure procedure for the pretrial conference.

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 confirming data is not used for model training, enterprise vs. consumer tier, and date of review. Opinion 19-RPCC-021 makes this a Rule 1.6 obligation.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting annual AI ethics training. Walker’s co-counsel admonishments illustrate supervisory exposure for non-reviewing attorneys on a brief.
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 monthly update covers new resources as they ship.