North Dakota: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney North Dakota firm: SBAND has issued no AI ethics opinion, so North Dakota attorneys are evaluated against existing Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3. Rule 1.1’s Comment [5] already includes “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” The court system’s June 2026 public notice permits AI use, requires no disclosure “solely because AI was used,” and states that filers are “fully accountable” for AI-generated errors, and the Supreme Court has sanctioned self-represented appellants for fictitious citations. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is persuasive guidance. The AI exclusions located so far sit on management-liability forms, not lawyers professional liability; the one reported LPL example is a manuscript endorsement on an unnamed carrier’s non-standard lawyers program.

Firms may wish to start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a vendor diligence record for each AI tool in use.

What governs by default

As of 2026-09-30, the SBAND ethics opinions index carries no AI entry; its most recent opinions date from 2020. SBAND has not addressed whether client consent is required before entering confidential information into an AI tool or what verification duties apply to AI-generated citations. The court system’s June 2026 public notice (below) now addresses disclosure to courts.

The North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, published by the court system, apply by their existing terms. North Dakota’s Rule 1.1 (effective March 1, 2016) carries the ABA technology-competence language as Comment [5]: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer must keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is persuasive, not binding, in North Dakota. It states that lawyers “must have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations” of the AI tools they use, that lawyers “should read and understand the Terms of Use, privacy policy, and related contractual terms and policies” of any tool or consult someone who has, that managerial lawyers “must establish clear policies regarding the law firm’s permissible use of GAI,” and that a lawyer “may not charge a client to learn about how to use a GAI tool or service that the lawyer will regularly use for clients.” The court system’s public notice separately ties AI use to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3.

What federal courts in North Dakota require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota has no AI-specific local rule or standing order. Its local rules and standing orders index carries no AI entry (newest standing order March 10, 2026), and its Local Rules (effective October 6, 2025) contain no AI provision. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota likewise has no AI rule or general order on its rules and orders page. The operative federal defaults are Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and, in bankruptcy, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.

The D.N.D. judges’ chambers pages (Chief Judge Welte, Judge Hovland, and Magistrate Judges Senechal and Hochhalter) list contact and staff information only and publish no individual practice standards, so any AI requirement would appear in case-specific orders. Firms may wish to review the orders entered in each new D.N.D. matter.

What North Dakota state courts require for AI use in filings

The North Dakota Supreme Court has issued no AI rule or standing order binding attorney filings. On June 1, 2026 the North Dakota Court System published an advisory Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (tracker entry):

• AI use is not prohibited.
• Disclosure of AI use “solely because AI was used” is not required.
• Every filing must comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 11.
• Attorneys and self-represented litigants are “fully accountable for the final content of all submissions, including any errors, omissions, misstatements of law or fact, or fabricated citations generated by AI tools.”
• Courts expect facts to be verified against the record and citations independently confirmed.
• N.D.R.Ct. 11.5 lets a court reject or strike filings or impose sanctions.

Separately, Administrative Order 36, effective May 18, 2026, governs the court system’s own use of generative AI:

• Court employees may use generative AI products that the court has licensed or approved.
• Tools that do not keep inputs within a closed system may be used only for non-confidential information.
• Users “must take reasonable steps, including thorough review and editing, to ensure accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness.”

It does not govern attorney filings.

Under Unified Judicial System Policy 206, effective January 1, 2026, “a digital audio record must be made of all court proceedings that are required to be on the record,” with certified transcripts provided by a contracted vendor. Firms may wish to monitor the North Dakota Supreme Court news page for rule amendments.

In 2026 the Supreme Court began attaching fixed dollar amounts to briefs with fictitious citations, all so far involving self-represented appellants.

• City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34 (Feb. 12, 2026). The court found that the appellant “cited several nonexistent cases,” wrote that “the use of technology, especially developing technology like AI, requires careful use and scrupulous verification of the arguments and authorities generated by anyone using the tool,” and ordered him to pay $500 as a sanction (tracker entry). It added: “we do not criticize the use of AI or AI-assisted tools. To the contrary, we encourage and embrace the use of technology to improve the work product of all litigants, whether represented or self-represented.”
• Stokka v. Stokka, 2026 ND 94 (May 7, 2026). The court summarily affirmed over a brief whose authorities it described as irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent, and awarded the appellee a fixed $1,000 in double costs and attorney’s fees (tracker entry).
• Ali v. Osman, 2026 ND 156 (Aug. 6, 2026). The court imposed a $1,000 sanction under N.D.R.App.P. 13 for multiple fictitious or nonexistent citations, even though the appellant had corrected two of them (tracker entry).

None of the three involved counsel, so the opinions do not say what amount the Court would set for a represented party; Helgeson notes that procedural rules are not applied differently because a party is self-represented.

At the trial level, Volker v. Nygaard, 2026 ND 56 (Feb. 26, 2026) records that a Cass County district court dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s claims with prejudice “as a Rule 11, N.D.R.Civ.P., sanction for repeatedly submitting fictitious, AI-generated case citations,” after warning the plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely.

What AI-related rules are pending in North Dakota?

No SBAND draft opinion or task force on attorney AI use, and no pending court rule on AI in filings, was found in the materials reviewed for this entry.

• HB 1167 (2025), signed April 10, 2025, requires content created with AI “to visually or audibly impersonate a human” in any action taken for a political purpose to carry the disclaimer “THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.”
• SB 2280 (2025), effective January 1, 2026, requires that adverse prior-authorization determinations be made by “a licensed physician or licensed pharmacist”; the statute does not mention artificial intelligence.
• Interim study. The Legislature’s interim Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee began meeting on July 15, 2026 ahead of the 2027 session; its agendas to date do not address attorney conduct or court filings.

Neither statute touches law firm AI use.

North Dakota requires 36 CLE hours every three years, including three in ethics or professional responsibility, with no technology-specific requirement (N.D. CLE Rule 3). SBAND offered a 1.5-hour ethics webinar on AI in November 2025 and lists its offerings on its CLE page. Firms may wish to document AI-related CLE as part of their Rule 1.1 competence record.

How do malpractice carriers in North Dakota treat AI use?

North Dakota does not require attorneys to carry professional liability insurance. Rule 1.15(j) requires each lawyer, at annual license renewal, to certify whether the lawyer represents private clients, whether the lawyer is covered by professional liability insurance, and the insurer’s name and policy number; “This information shall be disclosed to the public upon request.”

ALPS is listed among SBAND member benefits, and its North Dakota page states that it is “Endorsed by the State Bar of North Dakota.” ALPS describes itself as “the nation’s largest direct writer of lawyers’ malpractice insurance.” Its August 21, 2025 guidance states: “At the time of this writing, lawyers’ professional liability (LPL) policies typically do not exclude coverage for claims alleging negligence arising as a result of the use of generative AI. That said, coverage may depend on whether the conduct at issue meets the policy’s definition of ‘professional services.’”

A 2025 ABA Journal article quotes coverage counsel Lynda Bennett that “Use of AI tools may not satisfy the definition of professional service or losses flowing from the use of such tools.” Berkley’s “absolute” AI exclusion (Form PC 51380) removes coverage for claims “based upon, arising out of, or attributable to” AI use, but it amends D&O, employment practices, and fiduciary coverage, not lawyers professional liability. A broker has reported a competitor attaching a manuscript AI exclusion to a non-standard lawyers program. WTW’s 2026 marketplace outlook (October 2025) reports underwriter concern with “making sure there are tight controls over AI selection and use to ensure accuracy,” and predicts rates for small to mid-size law firms of “-5% to flat.”

What should a North Dakota firm have ready if a carrier asks about AI?

Some applications now ask about AI use. AmTrust’s lawyers professional liability application (form LPLPRO-APP-01 0523) includes the item “Allow the use of Artificial Intelligence software to draft documents. If checked, please attach description.” ALPS’s publicly posted application packet contains no North Dakota-specific AI items; ALPS’s guidance advises that lawyers “must always accept accountability and responsibility for all AI-generated output by validating the accuracy of outputs.”

Firms may wish to keep five artifacts:

• a written AI use policy;
• vendor due-diligence records for each tool in use;
• a citation-verification protocol;
• training and CLE records;
• a supervision protocol.

Firms that cannot show these may find the gaps raised in underwriting.

What documentation should a North Dakota firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3; Op 512). Enumerate approved AI tools, identify which categories of client information may or may not be entered into each, assign verification responsibility per matter, and name who maintains the policy.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (Rules 3.1, 3.3; N.D.R.Civ.P. 11; N.D.R.App.P. 13 and 28(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). A pre-filing step requiring independent verification of every AI-surfaced citation against a primary source or paid research database before any brief is filed in state or federal court.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court and judge AI order check (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At each new matter, review the court’s AI notices and any case-specific orders for AI requirements, and document the check.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence record (Rule 1.6). For each approved AI platform: dated review of terms of service and privacy policy, summary of data retention and training practices, any data processing agreement, and the reviewing attorney. Refresh at each policy renewal.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (Rules 5.1, 5.3). A documented procedure showing that a supervising attorney reviewed and approved any AI-generated or AI-assisted content before filing or client delivery. This log can serve as evidence of supervision.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Capture date, attendees, and content of AI training, including hallucination risks, Rule 3.3 candor obligations, confidentiality under Rule 1.6, and the firm’s AI use policy. Retain attendance certificates for any AI CLE attended.

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) Client confidentiality consent (Rule 1.6). Where appropriate, informed consent before client information enters a self-learning third-party AI platform, documenting the tool, the information shared, and the purpose. Op 512 states that “merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters purporting to authorize the lawyer to use GAI is not sufficient.”
2. (Owner: billing partner) Billing disclosures for AI tool costs (Rule 1.5). Op 512 states that lawyers who bill hourly “must bill for their actual time” and that a lawyer may not charge a client to learn a tool the lawyer will use regularly for clients.

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