Massachusetts: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Massachusetts firm: No formal Massachusetts ethics opinion exists. In December 2025, Chief Justice Budd reported that the SJC’s Standing Advisory Committee found existing rules and comments “provide ample guidance at this time” and recommended no changes, so the competence, confidentiality, and supervision rules are the operative standard. Smith v. Farwell held that Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7 require attorneys to know whether AI was used in preparing their filings and to verify AI-generated content, and the Board of Bar Overseers later publicly reprimanded the same lawyer for supervision failures under Rules 5.1 and 5.3. Firms may wish to confirm with their carrier how court-imposed sanctions and AI-related data-security incidents are covered, given the Ch. 93H obligations when client data passes through AI tools.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a vendor diligence record covering 201 CMR 17.00 data security.

What governs by default

No formal numbered ethics opinion on attorney use of generative AI has been located from the Massachusetts Bar Association or the Board of Bar Overseers. Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly. At the page level, the applicable-rules block carries the AI-relevance gloss; the rules themselves are not Massachusetts-AI-specific.

In her December 9, 2025 State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Kimberly S. Budd reported that the SJC’s Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct “did not recommend any changes, finding that existing rules and comments provide ample guidance at this time for attorneys as they consider using this latest new technology,” while noting that “their recommendation may change as this new technology continues to evolve.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to treat the existing competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), and supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) rules as the operative standard.

Two Office of Bar Counsel practice articles address the question without creating new rules. “The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence” (Afton Pavletic, January 2024) walks through Mass. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3, among others, in the AI context. “Two Years of Fake Cases and the Courts are Ratcheting up the Sanctions” (Assistant Bar Counsel Heather L. LaVigne, August 2025) documents escalating sanctions and states that “Lawyers, however, cannot abdicate this responsibility when using AI or delegate it to the technology.” The Office of Bar Counsel states that its articles “do not have substantive legal effect and do not constitute legal advice.”

No Massachusetts authority located has adopted ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024); it is a persuasive reference point, not the operative standard.

What federal courts in Massachusetts require for AI use in filings

As of September 30, 2026, the District of Massachusetts has no district-wide AI order, and none of the chambers standing orders posted on the judges’ pages at mad.uscourts.gov addresses AI. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Judges have instead addressed AI-generated citation errors case by case, including in Shore v. Dorel Juvenile Group (May 2026), Aguilar v. The Crawford Group (September 2026), Kaufman v. Upton (January 2026), and Vita Law Offices v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen (July 2025). In Traver v. General Motors Financial (March 2026), the court directed the plaintiffs to certify in future filings that they had checked their citations, a per-case directive that appears only on the docket. At the opening of each new federal matter, firms may wish to review the assigned judge’s standing orders and case management orders.

What Massachusetts state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide attorney-facing AI rule applies to Massachusetts state court filings (Superior Court, Appeals Court, or SJC). The SJC’s Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI, dated November 12, 2025, apply to “judges, clerks, registers, recorders, employees, law clerks, interns, and contractors of the Massachusetts state courts.” They answer “Not at this time” to whether court personnel may use GenAI for legal research, legal writing, or other legal work, and permit use only for administrative tasks, with approved tools set so they do not train on or retain inputs, and only with public information. The guidelines do not address attorneys or filings. In her December 9, 2025 address, Chief Justice Budd called them “a modest first step” and said the court expects “to update them as we learn more.”

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Massachusetts?

Smith v. Farwell, No. 2282CV01197 (Mass. Super. Ct. Norfolk Cnty. Feb. 12, 2024) (Davis, J.). Plaintiff’s counsel filed opposition memoranda that cited four fictitious cases. The oppositions had been drafted by “two recent law school graduates who had not yet passed the bar and one associate attorney,” and the associate had used an AI system; counsel reviewed them “for style, grammar and flow, but not for accuracy of the case citations.” The court imposed a $2,000 sanction under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7, holding that “no inquiry is not a reasonable inquiry” (order). It noted that counsel’s conduct “also may violate” Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 5.1, but based the sanction “solely” on Rules 11 and 7. It added: “The blind acceptance of AI-generated content by attorneys undoubtedly will lead to other sanction hearings in the future, but a defense based on ignorance will be less credible, and likely less successful, as the dangers associated with the use of Generative AI systems become more widely known.”

On April 30, 2025, the Board of Bar Overseers publicly reprimanded the same lawyer by stipulation “for failing to supervise his associate who relied upon and included inaccurate case research obtained through the use of artificial intelligence in pleadings,” finding violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 5.1(a), 5.1(b), 5.3(a), 5.3(b), and 8.4(d) (Public Reprimand No. 2025-2). The Board described the case as “a matter of first impression in Massachusetts” for misconduct attributable in part to a lawyer’s misuse of AI.

Dastou v. Holmes, No. 2381CV02212 (Mass. Super. Ct. Middlesex Cnty. June 25, 2025) (Goldenberg, J.). Defense counsel’s motions in limine and proposed jury instructions contained “citations to cases that do not exist, a quotation attributed to a real case that was not contained in the opinion, and misstatements as to the holding of real cases.” Counsel had run the motions and the court’s model jury instructions through ChatGPT, producing an instruction that “referenced a fictitious legal concept.” The court enjoined counsel from billing the client for the affected work and time in court, and ordered completion of an on-demand CLE program on drafting civil jury instructions. It stated: “If a lawyer uses generative technology, they may not blame errors in their work product on the technology. Any document filed with the court must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure accuracy and the protection of client interests.” It also warned that “[o]verreliance on AI risks deskilling legal practitioners.”

What AI-related rules are pending in Massachusetts?

No Massachusetts rule amendment on AI is pending. The Standing Advisory Committee recommended none, while noting that its recommendation may change, and the SJC’s Interim Guidelines for court personnel are subject to revision. No Massachusetts act passed in 2025 or 2026 addresses attorney use of AI (session laws checked September 30, 2026).

The Attorney General’s April 16, 2024 advisory on AI applies the Consumer Protection Act (G.L. c. 93A), the Anti-Discrimination Law (G.L. c. 151B), and the Data Security Law (G.L. c. 93H and 201 CMR 17.00) to “developers, suppliers, and users” of AI. It states that they “must take the necessary and appropriate steps to safeguard personal information used by those systems” and are expected to comply with breach notification requirements (advisory). The advisory does not address law firms specifically. Firms that use AI tools with personal information of Massachusetts residents may wish to document safeguards under 201 CMR 17.00.

How do malpractice carriers in Massachusetts treat AI use?

No Massachusetts LPL carrier AI guidance was located as of September 2026. Firms may wish to confirm with their carrier whether court-imposed sanctions such as those in Smith v. Farwell are covered, and whether data-security incidents involving AI tools under the AG advisory’s Ch. 93H framework fall under the LPL policy or require separate cyber coverage.

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

Massachusetts carriers have not, in materials reviewed for this entry, published the specific items they will request on AI-related applications. The Massachusetts authorities most relevant to a firm’s AI documentation are the existing Rules of Professional Conduct (which the Standing Advisory Committee found sufficient), Smith v. Farwell and Public Reprimand No. 2025-2, Dastou v. Holmes, and the AG advisory’s data-security overlay. Firms may wish to have ready a written AI use policy, citation verification records, training logs, vendor due diligence under 201 CMR 17.00, and an incident response procedure under Rules 3.3 and 1.4. Firms may wish to confirm specific application items with their carrier or broker.

What documentation should a Massachusetts firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Mass. RPC 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3). Enumerate approved tools. Prohibit entering confidential client data into non-compliant platforms. Require human review before any AI-generated content is filed or sent to clients. Assign output-verification responsibility. Responsive to the supervision findings in BBO Public Reprimand No. 2025-2 and the review failures in Smith v. Farwell and Dastou v. Holmes.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (Mass. R. Civ. P. 11; Mass. RPC 3.3). Pre-filing step requiring independent verification of every case citation against Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent, with the signing attorney attesting to accuracy. Smith v. Farwell held that “no inquiry is not a reasonable inquiry” under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11; firms may wish to document this step for every filing.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Court-specific workflow check (Mass. R. Civ. P. 11; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). For each new federal matter, review the assigned D. Mass. judge’s standing orders and case management orders for AI requirements; for state court matters, document that no statewide AI rule applies.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record (Mass. RPC 1.6; Ch. 93H; 201 CMR 17.00). For each AI platform: documented review of data privacy terms, training-data opt-out status, retention, and Massachusetts security standard compliance. The AG advisory frames this as a Ch. 93H question as well as an ethics question.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (Mass. RPC 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Capture date, attendees, and AI training content: hallucination risks, candor obligations under Rule 3.3, the firm’s AI use policy, and confidentiality obligations under Rule 1.6. Dastou ordered a CLE course as a remedy; prior training records are a mitigant.

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 (Mass. RPC 1.1, 3.3). On any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content, a brief attorney note: which tool, what tasks, how output was verified.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Incident response procedure for AI errors (Mass. RPC 3.3, 1.4). Defined process if AI-generated content is filed in error. Include prompt disclosure to the tribunal under Rule 3.3 and client notification under Rule 1.4.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing review for AI-assisted work (Mass. RPC 1.5). The Dastou order barred billing for the defective AI-affected work, a remedy counsel had proposed and implemented “Unprompted.” Bills should reflect actual attorney time, and any AI tool cost pass-through should be disclosed in the engagement letter.

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