New Hampshire: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney New Hampshire firm: New Hampshire has sparse AI guidance for lawyers. The state bar has not issued a formal numbered ethics opinion. The courts have not issued any AI-specific standing order either. Three 2024 NHBA Ethics Corner articles set the informal standard of care. They expose two patterns that put firms at risk today. First, attorneys input client information into open AI tools without informed consent. Second, attorneys file AI-generated citations without Shepard’s or KeyCite verification. Pending bill SB 657 would create a private civil-suit pathway when deceptive AI use occurs during legal proceedings, separate and apart from bar discipline.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and attorney and staff training records.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

New Hampshire has no formal numbered ethics opinion on attorney AI use. Instead, the NHBA Ethics Committee published three informal Ethics Corner articles in 2024. Together they represent the Committee’s considered views on how the NH Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI.

NHBA President-Elect Bob Lucic also chairs a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence. That committee is developing further guidance. It presented a CLE titled “Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Platforms” at the 2026 NHBA Midyear Meeting. No Special Committee report has been publicly released as of 2026-04-23. Pending legislation (SB 657) is covered further below.

NHBA Ethics Corner articles (informal commentary)

Each article is informal guidance only. Board of Governors reviews them before publication. None is a formal advisory opinion with a numbered designation.

Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (May 2024) holds these points.

• NH RPC 1.1 requires attorneys to understand how AI systems are designed and operate before relying on output.
• NH RPC 1.6 requires reviewing vendor terms and privacy policies before inputting client information.
• Under NH RPC 3.3, attorneys who do not properly vet AI-produced research and citations “arguably violate” the rule. Shepard’s or KeyCite are identified as the required verification practice.
• NH RPC 5.1 and 5.3 make managing lawyers responsible for subordinate and staff AI use. Firm-level policies are identified as an “important step.”

That article cites Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023) as the operative cautionary precedent.

Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence (September 2024) holds these points.

• Generative AI may be used to draft generic, non-identifying documents (litigation hold letters, contract templates, discovery requests). Two conditions: no client-specific confidential information is submitted, and the attorney reviews the output.
• Lawyers may not input confidential client information into an open generative AI model without informed client consent. Consent requires a discussion of material risks and alternatives, not boilerplate engagement letter language.
• AI use in a representation may be material information requiring NH RPC 1.4 disclosure.
• AI time savings are flagged as a future NH RPC 1.5 fee-reasonableness consideration.

Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Discrimination and Bias (October 2024) holds these points.

• “Ignorance of technology is not an excuse nor is it ethically permissible in the legal profession” under NH RPC 1.1.
• NH RPC 2.1 requires independent evaluation of AI output. Automation bias and machine bias are identified as specific failure modes.
• Where an attorney uses AI output that discriminates based on protected characteristics, against clients or third parties, and the attorney has not critically reviewed it, NH RPC 8.4(g) is implicated.

NH attorneys may contact the NHBA Ethics Committee for confidential informal prospective guidance at ethics@nhbar.org.

What federal courts in New Hampshire require when AI assists a filing

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (D.N.H.) has not issued a court-wide AI disclosure standing order as of 2026-04-23. The court’s rules and orders page lists no AI-specific order. Individual D.N.H. judges may have their own standing orders. Review the assigned judge’s standing order when each federal matter opens. Federal default rules also apply: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, alongside the candor rule.

What New Hampshire state courts require for AI use in filings

The New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch have not issued a standing order or administrative directive requiring AI disclosure as of 2026-04-23. Individual trial court judges may set case-specific requirements that public indexes do not capture. Verify directly with the clerk before any filing.

What AI-related rules are pending in New Hampshire?

SB 657 (2026 Regular Session) would prohibit deceptive use of AI across several settings: commerce, employment, political advocacy, legal proceedings, and any transaction where reliance by another person is reasonably foreseeable. The bill creates a private right of action in circuit court. Plaintiffs need not prove actual reliance if the deceptive AI use was material and reasonably likely to mislead. SB 657 also establishes an AI oversight position within the NH Department of Justice and a study commission. In March 2026 the bill passed the House with an “Ought to Pass” vote. Reverify Senate calendar status via gencourt.state.nh.us before relying on this entry. If enacted, attorneys who use AI to generate court submissions without disclosure could face civil exposure independent of bar discipline.

HB 1725 (2026), which would have created a comprehensive AI governance framework, was killed 16-0 “Inexpedient to Legislate” on 2026-02-19. That vote suggests the legislature is not moving toward comprehensive AI regulation in the near term.

Three NH AI statutes enacted in 2024 do not directly regulate attorney conduct, but they are relevant to client advisory work. Those statutes are HB 1688 (state agency AI), HB 1432 (deepfakes, Class B felony), and HB 1596 (deceptive AI in political advertising).

How do malpractice carriers in New Hampshire treat AI use?

New Hampshire does not require attorneys to carry malpractice insurance. Voluntary market carriers (ALPS, CNA, Lawyers Mutual, and others) write the NH book. Standard lawyers’ professional liability policies generally do not contain blanket AI exclusions as of early 2026. Coverage for AI errors, however, is not explicitly guaranteed. Carriers may argue that uncritical reliance on AI output falls outside “professional services,” or triggers unauthorized-practice exclusions. Data security exposure from inputting client information into open AI models may sit in a gap between LPL and cyber liability coverage. Review both policies. Confirm whether the LPL carrier’s “professional services” definition encompasses AI-assisted work.

What does my New Hampshire malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No NH carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. At renewal, the substantive standard is the NHBA Ethics Corner guidance plus ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) as persuasive authority. NH adopted the ABA Rule 1.1 technology-competence comment effective 2016-01-01. Plan on producing a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records, a citation-verification log for court filings, and a client AI disclosure and consent record. Confirm application items directly with your broker. Recheck SB 657’s status before the renewal cycle in case enactment changes the standard mid-policy.

What documentation should a New Hampshire firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Stand up the three artifacts every NH firm needs first.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Identify approved tools. Specify which may receive client-confidential information. Require Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent verification before any AI-generated citation is filed. Establish a supervision chain. Driven by NH RPC 1.1, 5.1, and 5.3 as applied in the Ethics Corner articles.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for each court filing. Ethics Corner articles specifically identify Shepard’s and KeyCite as the required practice under NH RPC 3.3, with Mata v. Avianca as the cautionary precedent.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client AI disclosure and consent record. Per the September 2024 Ethics Corner article, informed consent under NH RPC 1.4 and 1.6 requires a discussion of material risks and alternatives, not boilerplate engagement letter language.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Build the operational records around those policies.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool. Capture terms of service review, privacy policy review, whether the tool is closed or retains prompts for training, and date of review. Required by NH RPC 1.6 as applied in the May 2024 Ethics Corner article.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records on the firm’s AI policy. Cover the bias and discrimination concerns the October 2024 Ethics Corner article flags under NH RPC 1.1, 2.1, and 8.4(g) of the rules.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate and staff AI use, including review of AI-drafted work product, anchored in NH RPC 5.1 and 5.3 of the rules.

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 capturing which tools were used, what categories of information were submitted, and what verification was performed before filing or sending.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check at the opening of each federal matter. Individual D.N.H. judges may have standing orders even without a court-wide rule.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule to track NHBA Special Committee output, the SB 657 docket, and any new Ethics Corner articles. NH publishes its operative standard in informal commentary that updates without versioning notice.

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