North Carolina: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney North Carolina firm: 2024 FEO 1 is the governing standard, and it is exceptionally detailed. It addresses competence, confidentiality vetting with specific vendor questions, billing, supervision, and when client consent is required (substantive AI delegation requires consent; routine research does not). The W.D.N.C. federal court requires an AI certification on every brief. Cabarrus County state court requires disclosure 90 days before trial when AI is used to generate or alter evidence. Durham firms should maintain documentation for both the bar opinion and any cross-district federal practice into W.D.N.C.

Start with: a written AI use policy keyed to 2024 FEO 1, a vendor due-diligence file answering 2024 FEO 1’s specific vetting questions, and a W.D.N.C. filing certification checklist for any matter in the Western District.

Working in North Carolina? Jump to:

• Durham and the Middle District
• Charlotte and W.D.N.C. (coming soon)
• Raleigh and the Triangle (coming soon)

2024 FEO 1: the formal opinion

Citation: North Carolina State Bar, 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice (adopted November 2024). Primary source: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/.

Status: Formal opinion. Binding guidance on professional conduct.

Key requirements

• A lawyer may use AI tools only when three conditions are met. Use must be competent (knowing the tool’s capabilities and limitations), secure (protecting client confidentiality), and subject to proper supervision (reviewing and verifying all output before relying on it).
• Personal responsibility for all AI-assisted work product is non-delegable.
• Inputting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources (e.g., free-tier ChatGPT) is disfavored. Many public programs retain and train on user-provided information.
• Before using a third-party AI program that processes client data, the lawyer must independently research and satisfy herself on four points. Those four are: the vendor’s experience, reputation, and stability; security measures and confidentiality agreements; data retention, retrieval, and destruction protocols; and whether the provider uses client data for model training after service discontinues.
• Hosting a third-party AI tool on firm servers does not reduce security obligations. Customized firm programs must not silently transmit data to central public models.
• Signing a pleading based on AI-generated content does not change the obligation to personally verify every factual and legal assertion before certifying it.

Client disclosure requirements (nuanced)

• Client disclosure is not required for routine AI use (legal research, case management, generic administrative tasks).
• Client disclosure is required (as informed consent under Rule 1.4(b)) when AI is performing substantive delegation equivalent to outsourcing to a nonlawyer third party. The opinion cross-references 2007 FEO 12.
• AI may not be used to expand into practice areas where the lawyer is otherwise incompetent.

Billing requirements

• A lawyer may not bill at pre-AI hourly rates when AI reduces actual time spent. Billing must reflect actual time.
• Permissible alternatives: flat fees (not clearly excessive, with client consent) or itemized expense charges for AI tools directly and specifically tied to the representation (accurate, not excessive, disclosed).

Rules cited

Rule 1.1 (including Comment 8); Rule 1.4(b); Rule 1.5(a) and (b); Rule 1.6(c); Rule 3.1; Rule 5.3(a) and (b); Rule 7.1; Rule 8.4(c); N.C. R. Civ. Pro. 11.

Notable gaps

• Does not opine on attorney-client privilege implications of sharing client information with AI vendors (expressly left open as a legal question).
• No guidance on which specific vendors satisfy the security standard.
• Does not address whether “public AI with paid subscription and data processing agreement” (e.g., ChatGPT Enterprise) satisfies the confidentiality standard.
• No guidance on AI use in marketing or automated intake, beyond a citation to Rule 7.1.

Foundational precedent opinions

2024 FEO 1 expressly incorporates three earlier formal ethics opinions by reference. Firms reading 2024 FEO 1 in isolation will miss material that the opinion treats as already-established.

2007 FEO 12: Outsourcing Legal Support Services

Adopted April 25, 2008. Primary source: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2007-formal-ethics-opinion-12/.

When AI performs substantive delegation equivalent to outsourcing to a nonlawyer, the same standards apply: written informed client consent required, due diligence in selection, sufficient knowledge to supervise adequately, continuous review, independent professional judgment.

2011 FEO 6: SaaS and Cloud Vendor Security

Adopted January 27, 2012. Primary source: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2011-formal-ethics-opinion-6/.

The vendor vetting framework in 2024 FEO 1 flows directly from this opinion. A firm already maintaining cloud vendor documentation under 2011 FEO 6 has an established process that can be extended to AI vendors.

2022 FEO 4: Billing Considerations for Overlapping Legal Services

Adopted October 27, 2023. Primary source: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2022-formal-ethics-opinion-4/.

2024 FEO 1 incorporates this for billing analysis. Lawyers may not bill phantom hours (time not actually spent). Efficiency savings must pass to clients. Flat fees and alternative structures are permitted with client consent provided the fee is not clearly excessive.

Court orders

Two binding North Carolina court orders sit on top of the bar opinion. They take opposite approaches and practitioners with overlapping dockets must keep both workflows in mind.

W.D.N.C. Standing Order on AI

Full page: W.D.N.C. AI Standing Order. Docket No. 3:24-mc-104, signed June 18, 2024 by all seven W.D.N.C. active and senior district judges, led by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger. Every brief or memorandum filed in the Western District must include two certifications. First, that “[n]o artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of this document, with the exception of such artificial intelligence embedded in the standard on-line legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg.” Second, that every statement and citation has been checked by an attorney or paralegal (or the pro se party) for accuracy. The order frames the carve-out as “research” only. It does not address generative drafting features (e.g., CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI) embedded in those platforms, leaving that scope question unresolved on the face of the order. Applies to pro se filers as well.

Cabarrus County AO 25-09

Full page: Cabarrus County AO 25-09. Revised order December 8, 2025 (superseding July 23, 2024 original) under Senior Resident Judge Martin McGee, a Duke RAILS Fellow. State court matters in Cabarrus County require no disclosure for AI-drafted advocacy. Disclosure is required only when AI is used to generate or alter evidence, and must occur no later than 90 days before trial.

Key distinction

The W.D.N.C. federal order requires certification on every brief. The Cabarrus state order requires disclosure only for AI-generated evidence, on a 90-day pre-trial deadline. A firm with matters in both forums needs separate compliance workflows: a federal-brief certification template plus a state-court evidence-AI docket flag.

Pending cases

Creech v. City of Raleigh (NC Court of Appeals)

Full case page: Creech v. City of Raleigh.

• Citation: No. COA25-513 (N.C. Ct. App.)
• Caption: Michael Creech, Plaintiff-Appellant v. City of Raleigh, Zach Manor, and Anthony McLamb, Defendants-Appellees
• Status as of 2026-04-25: Pending. Trial court dismissed 2025-01-07. Notice of appeal filed 2025-01-29. On 2025-10-21, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend brief (to remove fictitious citations); City responded 2025-10-30. No oral argument or decision reported.
• Background: Plaintiff’s counsel cited two fictitious cases generated by “Vincent AI” software. The appellate court’s handling of the amendment motion and any subsequent sanctions will establish the NC appellate standard on AI-hallucinated citations.
• Significance: When decided, will establish the NC appellate standard for sanctions on AI-hallucinated filings and directly affect how carriers evaluate claims arising from AI citation errors.
• Docket monitor: https://appellate.nccourts.org/dockets.php?court=2 (search COA25-513).
• Secondary analysis: Wake Forest Law Review, Nov 2025: https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2025/11/clearing-the-air-potential-guidance-from-the-north-carolina-court-of-appeals-on-ai-use-in-court-filings/.

Durham and the Middle District

Durham County sits in the Sixteenth Judicial District Bar (NC State Bar judicial district, post-consolidation; older local rules still reference the “Fourteenth Judicial District” caption as a naming legacy). Federally, Durham is in the Middle District of North Carolina. There is no Durham-specific or M.D.N.C.-specific AI order; 2024 FEO 1 is the operative bar-conduct standard.

Federal practice in M.D.N.C.

No M.D.N.C. district-wide AI standing order and no individual-judge AI chambers rule has been identified across the current bench. M.D.N.C. filings are not subject to the W.D.N.C. certification requirement, but Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 verification duties and 2024 FEO 1 still govern. Durham firms with matters that cross into W.D.N.C. (Charlotte, Asheville, Statesville divisions) must maintain the W.D.N.C. certification workflow for those matters.

• M.D.N.C. judge roster: https://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/judges-middle-district-north-carolina
• M.D.N.C. judicial preferences: https://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/judicial-preferences-summary

Durham County state courts

No AI-specific local rule or administrative order has been adopted for Durham County Superior Court, District Court, Family Court, or Juvenile Court as of this entry’s date. Practitioners handling evidence in Durham matters should note that the Cabarrus County 90-day pre-trial AI evidence disclosure obligation has no reciprocal effect in Durham; there is no Durham-specific AI evidence disclosure rule.

• Durham County local rules: https://www.nccourts.gov/locations/durham-county/durham-county-local-rules-and-forms

Sixteenth Judicial District Bar / Durham County Bar Association

The Sixteenth Judicial District Bar is the mandatory bar for attorneys practicing in Durham County. The Durham County Bar Association (DCBA) is the voluntary companion organization. Both operate from https://durhambar.net. The organization runs a CLE program (live and on-demand) and houses specialty groups: the Young Lawyers Division, the George H. White Bar, the Durham Defense Bar, and Durham Orange Women Attorneys (DOWA), plus a BarCARES confidential intervention program. As of this entry’s date, no AI-specific CLE programming was identified on the public DCBA site. Durham firms seeking AI ethics CLE credit should look to NCBA statewide offerings or Lawyers Mutual NC resources.

Research and regional resources

• Duke Center on Law & Technology (DCLT) and its Responsible AI in Legal Services (RAILS) initiative publish primary research on responsible AI in legal practice. RAILS maintains a public tracker of court orders on AI, and the Cabarrus County Administrative Order 25-09 was authored by a RAILS Fellow (Senior Resident Judge Martin McGee). https://law.duke.edu/dclt/ ; https://rails.legal/.
• Lawyers Mutual Insurance NC is headquartered in Cary (1001 Winstead Drive, Suite 285), a short drive from Durham. LMNC’s AI guidance applies uniformly across its NC-insured population. https://lawyersmutualnc.com.

Charlotte and W.D.N.C.

Charlotte-specific overlay coming. In the meantime, Charlotte practitioners should reference the W.D.N.C. AI Standing Order for federal certification requirements and 2024 FEO 1 above for bar-conduct standards.

Raleigh and the Triangle

Raleigh-specific overlay coming. Wake County and the broader Triangle currently have no AI-specific local rule. The pending Creech v. City of Raleigh appeal (above) is the matter most likely to set Raleigh-area precedent on AI-hallucinated citations.

Courts without AI orders (confirmed)

• U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina (M.D.N.C.): No district-wide AI order and no judge-specific AI standing order or chambers rule identified across the current bench. Bench includes Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles; Judges William L. Osteen Jr., Thomas D. Schroeder, David A. Bragdon, Lindsey A. Freeman; Senior Judges N. Carlton Tilley Jr. and Loretta C. Biggs; Magistrate Judges L. Patrick Auld, Joi Elizabeth Peake, and JoAnna Gibson McFadden. Absence of an AI order means M.D.N.C. attorneys (including Durham-based firms) default to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 verification duties and 2024 FEO 1.
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina (NCED): No AI-specific rules identified.
• NC Supreme Court: No statewide AI policy adopted.
• NC Court of Appeals: No administrative order. Creech v. City of Raleigh pending; see above.

Source: UNC School of Government Criminal Law Blog (April 2026): https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/2026/04/15/artificial-intelligence-local-orders-and-the-courts/.

Legislation

No enacted North Carolina legislation directly governing attorney AI conduct. As of 2026-04-25, three 2025 NC General Assembly bills addressing related AI topics remain pending (verified at ncleg.gov): H934 (AI Regulatory Reform Act), latest action 2025-05-06 (Re-ref Com On Election Law); S624 (AI Chatbots: Licensing/Safety/Privacy), referred to Senate Rules and Operations 2025-03-26; H375 (AI/Ban Deceptive Ads), referred to House committees 2025-03-13. None directly regulate attorney conduct, and none have been enacted.

NC Governor’s Executive Order No. 24 (September 2, 2025) establishes a NC AI Leadership Council for state agencies. It does not regulate private attorneys: https://governor.nc.gov/executive-order-no-24-advancing-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-benefits-all-north-carolinians.

What does my North Carolina malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

Lawyers Mutual Insurance NC has published guidance citing 2024 FEO 1 directly and recommending written AI policies, AI use logs, AI disclosure language in client agreements, and human review checklists. As of this entry’s date, LMNC has not published a specific AI renewal-application questionnaire; the carrier’s guidance points to 2024 FEO 1 itself as the substantive standard. Firms should be ready to produce a written AI use policy, the vendor vetting file answering 2024 FEO 1’s specific questions, and billing documentation showing AI efficiencies pass through to clients. For any matter in the Western District, add the W.D.N.C. certification workflow. NC carriers and brokers are increasingly asking for this documentation at renewal.

What documentation should a North Carolina firm keep on file?

Every item below maps to an obligation in 2024 FEO 1 or to one of the two binding court orders.

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, prohibition on inputting client data into non-approved public AI, review and verification before delivery or filing, supervision chain, and billing rules. References 2024 FEO 1 as the governing standard.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for every filing, with explicit personal-verification sign-off. Required by 2024 FEO 1 (“signing a pleading based on AI-generated content does not change the obligation to personally verify every factual and legal assertion”) and N.C. R. Civ. P. 11.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) W.D.N.C. filing certification workflow for every matter in the Western District: confirm the certification statement is appended to every brief, AI use or non-use is disclosed accurately, and all citations were independently verified.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence file per 2024 FEO 1: for each AI tool, document vendor experience and reputation, security measures and confidentiality agreements, data retention and destruction protocols, and whether the provider uses client data for model training after service discontinues.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records documenting review of 2024 FEO 1, the firm’s AI policy, and AI-related CLE under Rule 1.1, Comment 8 competence duty.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol that treats AI as a nonlawyer assistant under Rule 5.3, with documented review of AI output before any client deliverable or filing.

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 logging attorney or staff name, tool used, task performed, human review completed, and date. Demonstrates continuous supervision under Rules 5.3(a) and (b).
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions. When AI performs substantive tasks (not just routine research), include an informed-consent clause per 2024 FEO 1 and 2007 FEO 12. For routine AI use, a general technology disclosure is best practice.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing discipline under 2024 FEO 1: no billing at pre-AI hourly rates when AI reduces actual time. Use flat fees with consent or itemized expense charges tied to the matter.
4. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Cabarrus County docket flag for matters in the 22nd Superior Court District: flag the 90-day pre-trial deadline for AI-generated evidence disclosure.
5. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for updated NC State Bar guidance, the pending Creech v. City of Raleigh appeal, any new W.D.N.C. or county-level orders, and updated vendor terms. Also covers breach response under NC data breach notification statute G.S. 75-65 for any incident where client information processed by an AI tool is compromised.

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

Primary source notes

2024 FEO 1 confirmed at ncbar.gov. On 2026-04-25, W.D.N.C. Standing Order PDF (Docket No. 3:24-mc-104, signed June 18, 2024) text confirmed verbatim at ncwd.uscourts.gov; the order’s research carve-out names “Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg” without addressing generative drafting features (e.g., CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI) within those platforms, leaving that scope question unresolved on the face of the order. Cabarrus County order confirmed at nccourts.gov. Creech v. City of Raleigh facts verified against Wake Forest Law Review analysis (2026-04-24); case remains pending, do not cite as precedent. Pending NC legislation (H934, S624, H375) statuses verified at ncleg.gov on 2026-04-25; none enacted.