New Jersey: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney New Jersey firm: Three NJ Supreme Court Notices to the Bar govern attorney AI use today, anchored by the March 2026 Notice and its starter policy template. Per the Court’s “not a safe harbor” warning, a written policy without implementation, training, supervision, and verification offers no protection. Filing AI-generated citations without verification is the biggest exposure. Under the January 2024 Guidelines, that exposure ties directly to RPCs 3.1 and 3.3.

Start with: a written AI use policy built on the March 2026 starter template, vendor due diligence records for every AI tool that touches client information, and a citation verification log for court filings.

NJ Supreme Court Notices to the Bar

New Jersey has not issued a formal numbered ACPE opinion on AI. The operative guidance is a sequence of three NJ Supreme Court Notices to the Bar, each issued directly by the Court rather than by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics.

Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers (Jan 2024)

Citation: Notice to the Bar, Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers (January 24, 2024), effective January 25, 2024. Primary source PDF.

Status: Binding practice guidance. Issued by the NJ Supreme Court on recommendation of the Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. Labeled “preliminary” and “interim,” with intent to issue more detailed guidelines later.

What it requires (mandatory language):

• A lawyer must check and verify all information generated by AI to ensure accuracy. Failure may result in RPC violations.
• A lawyer who uses AI to prepare pleadings, arguments, or evidence remains responsible for the validity of those submissions.
• Under RPC 1.6(f), a lawyer must ensure the security of an AI system before entering any non-public client information.
• Partners and supervisory lawyers are responsible for the ethical AI use of subordinate lawyers, nonlawyer staff, law students, and interns.
• The RPCs prohibit using AI to manipulate or create evidence, and prohibit allowing a client to do so.
• A lawyer must disclose AI use to a client if the client asks, or if the client cannot make an informed decision without knowing.

Rules cited: RPCs 1.2(d), 1.4(b)(c)(d), 1.5, 1.6, 1.6(f), 3.1, 3.3(a)(1)(a)(4), 3.4(b), 4.1(a)(1), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.2, 8.4(c)(d)(g).

Notable gaps: The Guidelines explicitly state the RPCs do not require disclosure of AI use in court filings. Billing impacts are acknowledged but deferred. “Reasonable efforts” to vet AI vendor security are not defined.

Attorney Responsibilities as to Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies (April 2025)

Citation: Notice to the Bar, Attorney Responsibilities as to Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies (April 2, 2025). Primary source PDF.

Status: Binding court order. Mandatory 1-credit technology CLE requirement per two-year reporting cycle for all NJ licensed attorneys, effective April 2, 2025. Implementation details (qualifying subjects, first cycle start) are deferred to a future notice.

The Court considered, and declined, a separate proposal to add an ABA-style technology competence comment to RPC 1.1. New Jersey has not codified the technology competence comment into RPC text. The underlying RPC 1.1 competence duty still applies; the technology-competence comment does not.

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Related Technologies (March 2026)

Citation: Notice to the Bar, Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Related Technologies (March 30, 2026). Primary source PDF.

Status: Notice to the Bar with attached starter AI use policy template. Not a binding rule; the Court frames it as a Supreme Court-endorsed practice standard, and warns explicitly that adopting a policy “is not a safe harbor.”

What the starter template requires:

• Lawyers remain responsible for all work product incorporating AI output; compliance with RPCs 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3, and 3.3 is non-delegable.
• Each firm must choose and document one of: no AI use; no client information in public AI; public AI only after de-identification; or only approved vendor tools with documented confidentiality protections.
• No AI-assisted content may reach a client, opposing counsel, or the court without lawyer review and editing for accuracy.
• Any case law, statute, rule, quotation, or pinpoint citation in an AI-assisted draft must be verified against an official source before filing; if it cannot be verified, it must be removed.
• Before using any AI tool for firm work, privacy and sharing settings must be reviewed and retention and reuse of firm information minimized. This applies to embedded AI features in email, document platforms, meeting tools, transcription tools, browsers, and mobile apps.
• AI-generated transcripts are drafts and may not be used as official transcripts; confidential recordings should not be uploaded without reviewing privacy settings.
• Non-lawyers may use AI only under supervising lawyer direction.

NJSBA Task Force Report (May 2024)

In May 2024, the New Jersey State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and the Law issued its Report, Requests, Recommendations, and Findings. Primary source PDF. The NJSBA is a voluntary professional association; the report is not binding. The Task Force found that existing NJ RPCs and Rules Governing the Courts are sufficiently flexible to address AI, and that no new rules are needed at this time. Recommendations track the Court’s later guidance. They include: written AI policies with risk assessment, no consumer-tier AI tools for tasks constituting the practice of law or client data, documented data flow for each AI tool, human review of AI outputs, and detailed records of AI/client data interactions. Billing implications are flagged as an open issue.

What federal courts in New Jersey require for AI use in filings

No District of New Jersey district-wide AI standing order or individual judge order is documented in the research note. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What New Jersey state courts require for AI use in filings

The January 2024 Preliminary Guidelines explicitly state the RPCs do not require disclosure of AI use in court filings. New Jersey has not adopted a state-court rule or Supreme Court standing order requiring attorneys to certify AI use in filings.

What AI-related rules are pending in New Jersey?

The January 2024 Guidelines are labeled “preliminary” and “interim,” with the Court signaling more detailed guidance to follow. Implementation details for the April 2025 technology CLE requirement (qualifying subjects, first reporting cycle) are deferred to a future notice. No NJ legislation specifically targeting attorney AI conduct was identified in the research note.

How do malpractice carriers in New Jersey treat AI use?

No NJ malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in the research note. Carriers and brokers will reference the March 2026 Notice and its starter template as the substantive standard. Those documents set the most operational vendor-diligence and verification expectations in the NJ corpus. Under the January 2024 Guidelines, the verification duty under RPCs 3.1 and 3.3 is the most direct malpractice exposure path.

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

No NJ carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials covered by the research note. Carriers and brokers will reference the March 2026 Notice and its starter template as the substantive standard, with the January 2024 Guidelines as the underlying RPC overlay. Plan on producing a written AI use policy built on the starter template, plus vendor due diligence records for every AI tool that touches client information. Add citation verification logs for court filings and CLE compliance evidence for the mandatory 1-credit technology requirement effective April 2, 2025. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a New Jersey firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy built on the March 2026 starter template: approved tools list, the chosen confidentiality posture (no AI, no client info in public AI, de-identification, or approved-vendors-only), human review requirement, citation verification, tool settings review, staff supervision, and client communication approach.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for each court filing. Both the January 2024 Guidelines and the March 2026 template require any case, statute, rule, or quotation in an AI-assisted draft to be verified against an official source before filing.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) CLE compliance tracking for the mandatory 1-credit technology CLE per two-year reporting cycle, effective April 2, 2025.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool used with client information: privacy policy, data retention, training data use, and security measures, with privacy and sharing settings reviewed.
2. (Owner: outside IT vendor) IT or security professional review record confirming the AI tool meets the RPC 1.6(f) security expectation in the January 2024 Guidelines.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate and staff AI use under RPCs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, including the March 2026 requirement that non-lawyers use AI only under supervising lawyer direction.

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 that a named attorney reviewed AI-assisted output before filing or transmission, per the March 2026 template’s auditing expectation.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Disclosure decision log for matters where a client asks about AI use or cannot make an informed decision without knowing, per the January 2024 Guidelines’ RPC 1.4 framing.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for the AI use policy and vendor list. The March 2026 Notice frames policy adoption as ongoing, not one-time, and the Court’s “not a safe harbor” warning makes implementation, training, supervision, and verification load-bearing.

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