South Dakota: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney South Dakota firm: South Dakota has no AI-specific ethics opinion, South Dakota Supreme Court rule, or federal court rule or standing order as of September 2026, so the South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct apply on their own terms, with ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) as persuasive guidance. Chief Justice Jensen has said AI-assisted briefs are acceptable “as long as the lawyers are doing the homework to make sure that the briefs are accurate.” ALPS, the bar-endorsed carrier, lists unverified AI output first among the AI coverage concerns in its published guidance.

Firms may wish to start with: 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 State Bar of South Dakota Ethics Committee has issued no opinion addressing AI. The newest entry on its opinions index is Opinion 2025-01, a Rule 1.7 conflicts question. The South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, codified at SDCL ch. 16-18, Appendix, apply directly; none has been amended to address AI.

The codified text of Rule 1.1 matches the Model Rule’s competence rule: “Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” The codified appendix does not reproduce rule-by-rule comments, so whether South Dakota adopted ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment [8] (technology competence) could not be confirmed from that text. The Rule 1.1 competence duty applies regardless.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024-07-29) is the most developed interpretive framework available to South Dakota attorneys. It is persuasive only. It covers competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), client communication (Rule 1.4), meritorious claims and candor (Rules 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(c)), supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3), and fees (Rule 1.5).

The 2024 State Bar Convention (June 12, 2024) included the CLE session “Generative AI: The Future is Here. Ethically Navigating This Brave New World.” The bar has published no AI guidance document or advisory opinion from it. South Dakota does not require continuing legal education: the State Bar states that “South Dakota does not require Continuing Legal Education to maintain a license to practice law.”

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

As of 2026-09-30, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has no standing order, general order, or local rule addressing AI in filings. Its standing orders list (most recent entry: Amended Standing Order 20-06, October 8, 2025) and its Civil Local Rules and Criminal Local Rules (both February 28, 2025) contain no AI provision. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota likewise has no AI order on its general orders list, and its Local Bankruptcy Rules (as amended July 13, 2026) contain no AI provision. The operative federal defaults are Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and, in bankruptcy, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.

In Mattson v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative (D.S.D. Nov. 17, 2025), the court addressed incorrect citations in pro se plaintiffs’ brief, stated that it was “disinclined to sanction these pro se Plaintiffs for improper citations,” and directed them to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) for future filings. Individual judges may address AI case by case, so firms may wish to review the assigned judge’s orders at the opening of each federal matter.

What South Dakota state courts require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, no rule of the South Dakota Supreme Court requires AI disclosure, AI certification, or AI use restrictions in filings. Circuit court standing orders were not reviewed for this entry, so firms filing in a circuit court may wish to check that circuit’s local practices. None of the Supreme Court’s published 2026 rules (Rules 26-01 through 26-08) concerns AI.

In remarks reported by South Dakota Searchlight in April 2024, Chief Justice Steven Jensen said: “We’ve not developed the rules, because frankly, if you start developing rules, sometimes you preclude innovation and the ability to improve what you’re doing.” He added: “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.” SDRPC Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) governs all filings regardless of drafting method.

What AI-related rules are pending in South Dakota?

As of 2026-09-30, no AI rule amendment, draft opinion, or task force report is in progress at the State Bar or the South Dakota Supreme Court, and no bill on attorney AI use was introduced in the 2025 or 2026 sessions. In 2026 the House rejected HB 1125, which would have created a task force to study artificial intelligence, on February 4, 2026.

South Dakota has enacted SB 164 (signed March 25, 2025), which regulates deepfakes in election communications, and SB 41 (signed March 16, 2026), which makes it a Class 5 felony to knowingly and intentionally create or distribute “digitally fabricated material” depicting an identifiable individual in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct. Neither applies to law firm operations.

How do malpractice carriers in South Dakota treat AI use?

ALPS is the State Bar’s endorsed carrier: the bar’s risk management page refers to “ALPS, your SBSD endorsed legal malpractice insurance carrier.” ALPS’s August 21, 2025 article on generative AI, which is not specific to South Dakota, states that “lawyers’ professional liability (LPL) policies typically do not exclude coverage for claims alleging negligence arising as a result of the use of generative AI.” It then discusses three coverage questions:

• Unverified AI output. Coverage may depend on whether the conduct meets the policy’s definition of professional services.
• Client-facing AI without attorney oversight. Such use could be viewed as the unauthorized practice of law, which LPL policies typically exclude.
• Confidential data put into AI platforms. Such use may implicate intentional-act or confidentiality exclusions, with cyber coverage possibly available.

The article states that “a lawyer’s duties of competence and diligence can never be delegated to a machine.” No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located.

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

No South Dakota-specific AI application items published by ALPS were located. Firms preparing for renewal may wish to have five items on file:

• a written AI use policy;
• a supervision and review log under SDRPC 5.3;
• a citation verification protocol under SDRPC 3.3;
• vendor assessment records under SDRPC 1.6;
• attorney and staff training records under SDRPC 1.1.

Firms may wish to confirm any application items directly with ALPS or their broker. Separately, SDRPC 1.4(c) requires a lawyer without professional liability insurance “with limits of at least $100,000” to disclose that on the lawyer’s letterhead.

What documentation should a South Dakota firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (SDRPC 5.1, 5.3; Op 512). Approved tools list. Categories of information that may not be input (mapping to SDRPC 1.6). Citation and output verification protocol. Who reviews AI-generated work product before filing, transmittal, or client delivery. Distribution to all firm personnel, including nonlawyers.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (SDRPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). A pre-filing step verifying every case, statute, and regulatory citation against Westlaw, Lexis, or official reporters. Chief Justice Jensen, in the remarks reported by South Dakota Searchlight, said AI-assisted briefs were acceptable “as long as the lawyers are doing the homework to make sure that the briefs are accurate.”
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (SDRPC 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Date, attendees, and content of AI training covering hallucination risks, candor under SDRPC 3.3, verification procedures, confidentiality under SDRPC 1.6, and the firm’s AI policy. Because South Dakota has no mandatory CLE, this log reflects firm policy rather than a licensing obligation.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record (SDRPC 1.6). For each AI platform: terms of service, training-data use, opt-out status, data retention, and deletion terms, updated when vendor terms change. SDRPC 1.6(c) requires a lawyer to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (SDRPC 5.1, 5.3). A documented procedure showing that a licensed attorney reviews, verifies, and takes responsibility for AI-generated work product. SDRPC 5.3 requires partners and supervising lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyer conduct “is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer”; ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies Rules 5.1 and 5.3 to the use of generative AI tools.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions (SDRPC 1.5, 1.6). Language on whether client information may be processed by third-party AI platforms, under what conditions, and how AI tool costs are billed.

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 (SDRPC 1.1, 3.3). A brief note on any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content: which tool, what tasks, and how output was verified.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client consent record (SDRPC 1.6). A record of the client’s informed consent before information relating to the representation enters a self-learning third-party AI tool. ABA Formal Opinion 512 states that “a client’s informed consent is required prior to inputting information relating to the representation into such a GAI tool.”
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check (SDRPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At the opening of each new federal matter, a review of the assigned judge’s orders and chambers practices for AI requirements, with the check documented.

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