South Dakota

none

Summary

South Dakota has issued no formal ethics opinion, no informal bar guidance document, no court standing orders, and no pending rule amendments addressing AI use as of April 2026. Chief Justice Steven Jensen stated publicly in April 2024 that the court was "not pondering regulations" on attorney AI use, preferring reliance on existing professional conduct rules.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.3
Rule 1.4
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

ALPS is endorsed by the State Bar of South Dakota and has published guidance on AI coverage gaps including risks from blind reliance on AI output, client-facing AI without oversight, and confidential data uploaded to AI platforms.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

South Dakota is a blank-slate jurisdiction. The State Bar of South Dakota Ethics Committee has issued no formal or informal opinion on AI through 2025-01. No standing order from the South Dakota Supreme Court, any circuit court, or the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota requires AI disclosure or certification.

Chief Justice Steven Jensen addressed AI directly in April 2024, stating: “Are we getting briefs from AI right now? Maybe, and I don’t have a problem with it, as long as the lawyers are doing the homework to make sure that the briefs are accurate.” Existing South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct apply in full to AI use without amendment. No legislation governing attorney AI use has been enacted.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney South Dakota firm: The operative framework is the existing SDRPC (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.3). ABA Formal Opinion 512 provides the most developed interpretive framework, though persuasive only. ALPS, the bar-endorsed carrier, treats documentation of firm AI policies and attorney oversight as the practical readiness standard.

Last verified: April 23, 2026