Nebraska: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Nebraska firm: No Nebraska Advisory Committee opinion governs AI use, but the U.S. District Court for Nebraska’s December 2024 certification rule is binding on every civil filing, and the Nebraska Supreme Court has already suspended an attorney over AI-hallucinated citations under existing professional conduct rules. Firms that file federal civil cases without the AI certification, or that file briefs without independent citation verification, are exposed to suspension-level discipline today.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a D. Neb. AI certification compliance workflow, and a citation verification log for every brief.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 as the operative framework

Citation: ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024).

Status: Non-binding. Nebraska has no formal or informal AI ethics opinion of its own. Through 2026-04-23, a review of the Nebraska Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics index confirms no AI opinion has been issued. In the absence of a state opinion, ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the operative national framework for Nebraska attorneys. The Nebraska Advisory Committee opinion index is available at nebraskajudicial.gov.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• Lawyers must maintain technological competence regarding the AI tools used in representation.
• Client confidential information may not be input into an AI tool without adequate confidentiality and security safeguards and informed client consent where required.
• AI-generated output, including all citations and legal authority, must be independently verified before a lawyer relies on it or files it.
• Billing must reflect AI efficiency gains. AI subscription costs are firm overhead, not billable to the client as a disbursement.
• Supervising lawyers must establish reasonable measures to ensure subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer staff comply with the rules when using AI.

Notable gap

Nebraska’s Advisory Committee has not adopted, endorsed, or rejected ABA Formal Opinion 512. Practitioners apply Op 512 by default. The operative state authority for AI misconduct in Nebraska is the Rules of Professional Conduct themselves, applied as the Nebraska Supreme Court applied them in Prososki. The full rule text is at nebraskajudicial.gov.

What federal courts in Nebraska require for AI use in filings

Effective December 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska adopted an AI certification rule in its Nebraska Civil Rules at NECivR 7.1(d)(3)–(5). Every brief must include a Certificate of Compliance. The certificate must state either that no generative AI was used in drafting, or that a human signatory verified the accuracy of all AI-generated content, including all citations and legal authority. Regardless of drafting method, all parties remain responsible for the accuracy of all filings. Briefs not in compliance may be stricken at the court’s sole discretion. A material misrepresentation in the certificate may result in sanctions against the signing attorney. See the tracker entry for NECivR 7.1(d) AI certification.

What Nebraska state courts require for AI use in filings

No Nebraska state court has issued a standing order or local rule specifically governing AI disclosure in filings as of 2026-04-23. The Nebraska Supreme Court decided Prososki under existing professional conduct rules, not a purpose-built AI rule. Firms should monitor nebraskajudicial.gov for any forthcoming rule proposals.

Prososki v. Regan (Neb. 2026)

This is the most consequential AI enforcement action by any state high court to date.

Facts. Attorney W. Gregory Lake of Omaha filed an appellate brief in a contested divorce case. Of 63 case references in the brief, 57 contained some form of defect. The court documented 20 examples of fictional quotes, incorrect case numbers, or misrepresentation of the results of other court cases. Lake initially denied AI use at a February 2026 hearing. Two days before the suspension order, he submitted an affidavit admitting he had used AI to write the brief, acknowledging it was a “grave error of judgment.”

Rules cited. The Nebraska Supreme Court applied Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.1 (competence), § 3-501.3 (diligence), and § 3-503.3 (candor toward the tribunal).

Sanctions. On 2026-03-20 the court struck the entire appellate brief, terminating the client’s appeal, and referred Lake to the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline. On 2026-04-15, the Chief Justice suspended Lake from practice “until further notice from the court.”

Significance. The court held that “whether using AI or not, the obligations of candor, competency, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same.” Improper AI use was characterized as conduct that “imperils the reputation of the legal profession and wastes time and resources.” Nebraska’s existing rules carry suspension-level consequences for AI-hallucinated filings without any new AI-specific rule. The official citation is Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (2026) (No. S-25-295, released March 20, 2026).

What AI-related rules are pending in Nebraska?

LB 525, Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act. Signed by Governor Pillen on 2026-04-14, with provisions effective 2027-07-01. Slip law. Operators of conversational AI services have several duties. Where a reasonable person would not understand that the service is not human, operators must disclose to users that it is not. AI status must be disclosed to minors. Sexually explicit content is prohibited. Protocols for prompts regarding suicide or self-harm are required. Firms deploying client-facing AI chatbots for intake or Q&A should audit vendor compliance before the effective date.

LB 642, Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act. Introduced 2025-01-22, referred to the Judiciary Committee 2025-01-24, and heard 2025-02-06. The Legislature’s bill record shows the most recent action as “Title printed. Carryover bill” on 2026-01-07, carrying the bill into the 2026 session pending amendment and floor vote. Bill page. If enacted, developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems would owe duties of care, documentation, and consumer notice for consequential decisions in employment, housing, credit, and health care. Enforcement would lie with the Nebraska Attorney General with no private right of action.

How do malpractice carriers in Nebraska treat AI use?

Nebraska has no state-specific malpractice carrier. Endorsed carriers (AMBA, Old Republic Lawyers Specialty Insurance) are listed by the Nebraska State Bar Association on its professional liability insurance page; ALPS is widely used by solo and small-firm practitioners. For 2024-2025, no Nebraska-specific AI malpractice bulletins from these carriers were identified. ALPS has published national guidance, Insurance Coverage Issues for Lawyers in the Era of Generative AI. It flags three principal coverage risks: blind reliance on AI output, deployment of client-facing AI without attorney oversight, and confidentiality breaches via unsecured cloud AI tools.

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

No Nebraska-endorsed carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. At renewal, Nebraska carriers will reference three substantive standards: the D. Neb. certification rule, the Prososki decision applying §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, and 3-503.3, and ABA Formal Opinion 512. Plan on producing four artifacts. A written AI use policy. Vendor due diligence records. A D. Neb. certification compliance log. A citation verification log for every brief. The Prososki suspension is recent enough that Nebraska firms should expect renewal questions about AI governance practices specifically tied to that case.

What documentation should a Nebraska firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, mandatory attorney review and verification of all AI output, vendor data-practice review, and staff training. ABA Formal Opinion 512 provides the national template; Prososki demonstrates the rule-based stakes under §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, and 3-503.3.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) D. Neb. AI certification compliance workflow. For every civil filing in the U.S. District Court for Nebraska, confirm the Certificate of Compliance includes the AI certification language required by the December 2024 local rules. Designate a responsible attorney to verify before filing and maintain a log of certifications filed.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log requiring independent verification of every case citation, statute, and regulation in every brief or memo regardless of drafting method. Prososki establishes that filing unverified AI output is a suspension-level offense in Nebraska under existing rules.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool used with client data: privacy policy, data retention, model training practices, and any data processing agreement. Addresses § 3-501.6 and ALPS coverage guidance.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records on AI limitations, firm policy, and the Prososki facts. Supports the supervision obligations under §§ 3-505.1 and 3-505.3.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions disclosing that AI tools may be used, describing supervision and verification procedures, and obtaining client consent before client-specific information is input into any AI tool. Addresses §§ 3-501.4 and 3-501.6.

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 documenting which tools were used, for what purpose, and which attorney verified the output. Supports malpractice defense and demonstrates compliance with §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, and 3-503.3.
2. (Owner: managing partner) LB 525 compliance review. Review any client-facing chatbot or AI intake tool, on a calendar tied to the 2027-07-01 effective date of the Conversational AI Safety Act.

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