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 the District of Nebraska requires every party that used generative AI to verify its filing (NECivR 7.1(d)(2), which replaced the December 2024 AI certificate on December 1, 2025), and the Nebraska Supreme Court has already struck a brief resting on fictitious authority, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel for discipline under existing professional conduct rules. Firms that file unverified AI-drafted briefs in federal court, or that file briefs without independent citation verification anywhere, are exposed to striking, sanctions, and disciplinary referral today.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a D. Neb. generative AI verification 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. As of 2026-09-30, the Lawyers’ Advisory Committee’s opinion index lists no opinion on artificial intelligence; its most recent opinion is No. 25-01 (2025). 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

Since December 1, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska’s Nebraska Civil Rules provide at NECivR 7.1(d)(2) that all parties are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their briefing regardless of whether generative AI drafted any of it, that parties using generative AI are required to verify the contents of their filings, and that an unverified filing may be stricken and sanctions imposed on the filing party. The Certificate of Compliance that accompanies every brief covers word limits only. From December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025, the 2024 edition of the rules had required that certificate to state either that no generative AI was used or that a human signatory had verified all AI-generated content, including all citations and legal authority; the court deleted that requirement in its 2025 amendments. See the tracker entry for NECivR 7.1(d).

What Nebraska state courts require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, no Nebraska state court rule or standing order specifically governs AI use or disclosure in filings: the Nebraska Supreme Court’s rule amendments page lists no AI-related amendment adopted or proposed in 2026. The Nebraska Supreme Court decided Prososki under existing professional conduct rules, not a purpose-built AI rule, and a Douglas County district court sanctioned counsel in Mundy v. Clickstop, Inc. (2025) without an AI-specific rule. Firms may wish to 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 Plains Legal Group filed the appellant’s brief on July 31, 2025 in a contested divorce appeal. The Supreme Court found that the brief “contains numerous citations to fake cases, real cases with fake quotations, real cases with mischaracterized holdings, and Nebraska statutes and court rules with fake quotations,” and set out examples in a chart. The court described the matter as presenting “the use of fictitious, potentially AI-generated cases, holdings, and quotations.” In his motions for leave to file a corrected brief and at oral argument, counsel asserted that AI was not used, attributing the errors to “copying and pasting … from Westlaw without verifying the official reporter” and to a laptop screen crack.

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 appellant’s brief, dismissed the appeal, and referred Lake to the Counsel for Discipline “to investigate the filing of Jason’s appellate brief rife with fictitious and misrepresented authority.” News reports describe a later suspension of Lake; no suspension order has been located on a primary source (see unverified claims).

Significance. The court held that “[w]hether 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.” Under existing rules, a brief resting on fictitious authority can be struck, the appeal dismissed, and counsel referred for discipline, 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. generative AI verification rule (NECivR 7.1(d)(2)), 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 verification record for every D. Neb. filing that used generative AI. A citation verification log for every brief. The Prososki decision 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. generative AI verification workflow. For every civil brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska that used generative AI, NECivR 7.1(d)(2) requires the party to verify the filing’s contents; an unverified filing may be stricken and sanctioned. Designate a responsible attorney to complete and record that verification before filing. The AI certificate that the December 2024 rules required in every brief was removed effective December 1, 2025; the Certificate of Compliance now covers word limits only.
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 shows that a brief resting on unverified, fictitious authority can be struck, the appeal dismissed, and counsel referred to the Counsel for Discipline 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 newsletter covers new resources as they ship.