New Hampshire: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 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 outside AI tools without informed consent. Second, attorneys file AI-generated citations without vetting them (the articles give Shepard’s and KeyCite as examples). The main 2026 AI bill, SB 657, was rewritten during the session and did not become law.

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.

The NHBA also has a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence, charged with gathering information and providing “guidance on best practices on its use, especially as they relate to ethical, privacy/confidentiality, and quality control issues.” Members of the committee presented a panel titled “Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Platforms” at the 2026 NHBA Midyear Meeting, moderated by committee chair Bob Lucic, who became NHBA President in July 2026. As of September 2026, the committee has published no report or guidance, and the NHBA’s list of ethics opinions and articles includes no numbered AI opinion.

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 lawyers to maintain competence in technology, and NH RPC 2.1 requires lawyers who rely on AI-produced information to understand the design and operation of the AI systems involved.
• NH RPC 1.6 requires reviewing vendor terms and privacy policies before inputting client information.
• An attorney who does not properly vet AI-produced information arguably violates NH RPC 3.3, 3.4, and 4.1. The article gives Shepardizing on Lexis and KeyCite on Westlaw as examples of vetting.
• 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.
• Disclosing confidential client information to an outside generative AI tool without the client’s informed consent would violate NH RPC 1.6. Informed consent requires adequate information and explanation about the material risks and reasonably available alternatives.
• 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.
• The article does not treat unintended AI bias as an NH RPC 8.4(g) problem: because a lawyer’s purpose in using AI is not to discriminate, harass, or embarrass, it concludes that the lawyer’s “use of AI does not implicate N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g).” The bias risk it identifies runs through NH RPC 1.1 and 2.1 instead.

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 September 2026, the court’s orders page lists no AI-specific order and its Local Rules (effective December 1, 2025) contain no AI provision. The court posts no individual chambers procedures, so check the scheduling order in each matter. In Turgeon v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., No. 25-cv-0510-SM-TSM, 2026 DNH 112 (D.N.H. Aug. 26, 2026), the district court affirmed a bankruptcy court that had struck a pro se debtor’s objection containing what the bankruptcy court called “false, hallucinated case citations”; the cited cases “either did not exist, were issued by a different court than the court Turgeon had cited, or simply did not stand for the propositions for which Turgeon had cited them.” 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

As of September 2026, the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch have not issued a standing order or administrative directive requiring AI disclosure in filings. On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court established a judicial-use generative AI task force, led by Senior Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, to “examine and make recommendations for establishing a policy governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) in the judicial decision-making process,” with a report due to the court by January 30, 2026. No task force report or resulting policy has been posted publicly. The task force’s charge concerns judicial decision-making, not attorney filings. 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) was introduced to prohibit deceptive use of AI in settings that included legal proceedings, with a private right of action. The Senate passed it on 2026-03-26 only after amending it into a bill creating a study commission on AI, dropping the private right of action. The House then amended it again into a bill on state agencies’ use of information technology and AI and passed it on 2026-05-14. On 2026-05-21 the Senate voted to nonconcur with the House amendment, and the docket records no committee of conference and no chapter number: the bill did not become law.

HB 1725 (2026), “relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence technologies,” drew a 16-0 committee recommendation of “Inexpedient to Legislate,” and the House killed it on 2026-02-19. SB 640 (2026), “relative to the use of artificial intelligence to provide services requiring a professional license,” passed the Senate with an amendment but was voted “Inexpedient to Legislate” in the House on 2026-05-14.

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, chapter 209), HB 1432 (deepfakes, Class B felony, chapter 243), and HB 1596 (deceptive AI in political advertising, chapter 345).

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. New Hampshire’s Rule 1.1 amendments took effect 2016-01-01 (order); the court does not adopt ABA comments, and the NH Ethics Committee comment to Rule 1.1 reads the ABA technology language more narrowly: “a lawyer should keep reasonably abreast of readily determinable benefits and risks associated with applications of technology used by the lawyer, and benefits and risks of technology lawyers similarly situated are using.” 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. Watch for a successor to SB 657 in the 2027 session.

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. The May 2024 Ethics Corner article treats failure to vet AI-produced information as an arguable NH RPC 3.3 problem, gives Shepard’s and KeyCite as examples of vetting, and cites 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 1.6 requires adequate information and explanation about the material risks and reasonably available alternatives, and NH RPC 1.4 may call for telling the client about AI use.

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 automation-bias and machine-bias concerns the October 2024 Ethics Corner article flags under NH RPC 1.1 and 2.1.
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) Case-specific AI order check at the opening of each federal matter. D.N.H. has no court-wide rule, so check the scheduling order and any case-specific directions.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule to track NHBA Special Committee output, the Supreme Court’s generative AI task force, any 2027 AI legislation, and 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 newsletter covers new resources as they ship.