North Dakota: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney North Dakota firm: The absence of an SBAND opinion does not create a safe harbor. North Dakota attorneys are evaluated against existing Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, with ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) as the persuasive interpretive framework. Carriers, including ALPS, are scrutinizing firm AI governance at underwriting; some policies now carry absolute AI exclusions.

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

The State Bar Association of North Dakota has issued no formal ethics opinion, informal opinion, or task force report on attorney use of generative AI. As of April 2026, the SBAND ethics opinions index carries no AI entry. SBAND has not addressed whether client consent is required before entering confidential information into an AI tool. It has also not addressed what verification duties apply to AI-generated citations, or whether AI use must be disclosed to opposing counsel or tribunals.

By their existing terms, the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct apply. Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims), Rule 3.3 (candor), and Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision) carry their ordinary meaning when the firm uses AI. Whether North Dakota has adopted ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 (technology competence) verbatim should be confirmed against the official SBAND rules index; the underlying Rule 1.1 competence duty applies regardless.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is persuasive, not binding, in North Dakota. A North Dakota attorney defending an AI-related disciplinary complaint would likely be evaluated against Op 512’s framework. Lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools used. They must analyze terms of service and data practices before inputting client information, verify AI output before filing, and establish firm-wide policies. They may not bill learning time or pocket efficiency gains as inflated time entries.

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

The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota has not published an AI-specific local rule or standing order. As of April 2026, the court’s local rules and standing orders index carries no AI entry. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support and legal contentions must be warranted.

Individual D.N.D. judges may impose AI disclosure or certification preferences in chambers practices or scheduling orders that are not separately published. Before any new D.N.D. filing, firms should review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders.

What North Dakota state courts require for AI use in filings

The North Dakota Supreme Court has issued no statewide AI standing order governing attorney filings. Its rulemaking committee has, however, moved toward AI-generated transcription (automated speech recognition) for court records, with audio recordings mandated in courtrooms beginning 2026-01-01. While the transcription initiative concerns court operations rather than attorney conduct, it signals that future rulemaking on AI in proceedings is a near-term possibility. Monitor the North Dakota Supreme Court news page for amendments.

What AI-related rules are pending in North Dakota?

No SBAND draft opinion or task force on attorney AI use has been announced. North Dakota’s enacted AI legislation does not regulate attorney conduct. HB 1167 (69th Legislative Assembly, 2025), filed 2025-04-11, requires a disclaimer on AI-generated political advertising that impersonates human likeness or voice. A 2025 healthcare bill (signed 2025-04-23) requires licensed physicians, not AI systems, to make prior authorization decisions. Neither statute touches law firm AI use.

SBAND is offering a free AI Continuing Legal Education series running 2026-03-18 through 2026-06-10. Attending and documenting AI ethics CLE is a reasonable step toward demonstrating Rule 1.1 competence compliance.

How do malpractice carriers in North Dakota treat AI use?

North Dakota does not require attorneys to carry professional liability insurance. SBAND endorses ALPS Insurance through its member benefits program. ALPS is the largest direct writer of legal malpractice coverage in the country and has published guidance on AI coverage issues.

A 2025 ABA Journal analysis confirmed that AI-related claims may fall outside the scope of traditional professional liability policies. Berkley has introduced “absolute” AI exclusions eliminating coverage for claims based upon, arising out of, or attributable to AI use. During underwriting, carriers are conducting due diligence on firms’ AI governance. Firms with no written policy, no vendor diligence file, and no supervision procedures are more likely to face renewal questions and potentially higher premiums or coverage conditions.

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

ALPS has not published the specific items it will request on the application. Its public AI guidance points to the ABA Op 512 framework as the substantive standard. The ABA Journal coverage tracks the same framework. Plan on producing five artifacts: a written AI use policy; vendor due-diligence records for each tool in use; a citation-verification protocol; training and CLE records; and a supervision protocol. North Dakota’s lack of a mandatory-insurance rule does not reduce carrier scrutiny for firms that do carry coverage.

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. This is the single artifact most directly responsive to carrier underwriting inquiries.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (Rules 3.1, 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Pre-filing certification 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) Judge-specific AI order check (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At each new D.N.D. matter and each new state-court venue, review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders, case management orders, and chambers practices for AI disclosure requirements. The check takes minutes and documents diligence.

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). Documented procedure showing that a supervising attorney reviewed and approved any AI-generated or AI-assisted content before filing or client delivery. This log is the primary evidence of supervision in any disciplinary inquiry.
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. SBAND’s free 2026 AI CLE series is a low-cost starting point; retain attendance certificates.

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, written informed consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform, documenting the tool, the information shared, and the purpose. Op 512 treats boilerplate engagement letter consent as insufficient.
2. (Owner: billing partner) Billing disclosures for AI tool costs (Rule 1.5). Lawyers may not bill clients for time spent learning a technology for general firm use. Efficiency gains from AI must be reflected in billing, not pocketed as inflated time entries.

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