South Dakota: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney South Dakota firm: South Dakota is a blank-slate jurisdiction. The operative framework is the existing South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.3), and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is the most developed interpretive framework available, though persuasive only. The single biggest exposure is over-reliance on AI output without independent verification, which ALPS, the bar-endorsed carrier, treats as the primary AI coverage risk pathway.

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

Through 2025-01, the State Bar of South Dakota Ethics Committee has issued no formal or informal opinion addressing AI. The committee’s opinions index reflects 2023-2025 opinions on conflicts, settlement funds, and disclosure duties. None addresses AI. South Dakota’s Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly and without amendment. When the firm uses AI, the rules in the page-level applicable-rules block carry their ordinary meaning. SDRPC text is codified at SDCL 16-18-A.

Whether South Dakota’s Rule 1.1 includes ABA Comment 8 (technology competence) has not been independently confirmed against the primary text; firms should verify directly. The underlying 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 and not binding. Op 512 covers competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), client communication (Rule 1.4), candor and verification (Rules 3.1 and 3.3), supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3), and fee implications.

The 2024 State Bar Annual Convention (2024-06-12) included a CLE session on AI and ethics presented by USD Knudson School of Law faculty. The session was educational and produced no formal guidance document, advisory opinion, or enforceable output.

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

No standing order requiring AI disclosure has been identified for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota (D.S.D.). The District of South Dakota is not listed in major court-order tracker compilations as adopting AI-specific requirements as of April 2026. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support, and legal contentions must be warranted, regardless of the drafting tool. Individual judge orders may exist in chambers practices that are not separately published. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter.

What South Dakota state courts require for AI use in filings

As of April 2026, no standing order from the South Dakota Supreme Court or any South Dakota circuit court requires AI disclosure, AI certification, or AI use restrictions in filings. Chief Justice Steven Jensen addressed this directly in April 2024. He stated that the court had not developed new rules because “if you start developing rules, sometimes you preclude innovation.” AI-assisted briefs are acceptable “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 April 2026, no AI-specific rule amendments, draft opinions out for comment, or task force reports are in progress at the State Bar of South Dakota or the South Dakota Supreme Court. No legislation governing attorney AI use has been introduced. South Dakota has enacted SB 164 (2025-03-25) regulating AI deepfakes in election communications. Two 2025 bills address AI-generated non-consensual sexual imagery. None of these apply to law firm operations.

How do malpractice carriers in South Dakota treat AI use?

ALPS (Attorneys Liability Protection Society) is the largest direct writer of legal malpractice insurance for South Dakota attorneys. The State Bar of South Dakota endorses ALPS. ALPS has published guidance identifying three primary AI coverage risk areas. First: AI output reliance without verification, the primary exposure pathway under standard professional liability policies. Second: AI deployed directly to clients without attorney oversight, where unauthorized practice exclusions and “no professional service rendered” arguments may limit coverage. Third: confidential client data fed into AI platforms without consent or vendor diligence, which may shift to cyber liability coverage. ALPS’s stated core principle, applicable in South Dakota: “a lawyer’s duties of competence and diligence can never be delegated to a machine.”

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

In materials reviewed for this entry, ALPS has not published the specific AI-related items it will request on the application. ALPS’s published guidance points to the existing SDRPC plus the ABA Op 512 framework as the substantive standard. Plan on producing five items. First, a written AI use policy. Second, a supervision and review log under SDRPC 5.3. Third, a citation verification protocol under SDRPC 3.3. Fourth, vendor assessment records under SDRPC 1.6. Fifth, attorney and staff training records under SDRPC 1.1. Confirm the application items directly with ALPS or your broker. The substantive obligations above are what the application will measure against.

What documentation should a South Dakota firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational items.

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. Identify who reviews AI-generated work product before filing, transmittal, or client delivery. Distribute to all firm personnel including non-lawyers.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (SDRPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Pre-filing step requiring independent verification of every case, statute, and regulatory citation. Verify against Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar, or official reporters. Chief Justice Jensen’s framing defines the minimum standard: attorneys must “do 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. Cover hallucination risks, candor obligations under SDRPC 3.3, verification procedures, confidentiality under SDRPC 1.6, and the firm’s AI use policy. The 2024 Annual Convention session is a relevant entry.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Three documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record (SDRPC 1.6). For each AI platform: documented review of terms of service, training-data use, opt-out status, data retention, and deletion terms. Update when vendor terms change. This is the practical measure of due diligence for confidentiality purposes.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (SDRPC 5.1, 5.3). Documented procedure showing a licensed attorney reviews, verifies, and takes responsibility for AI-generated work product. SDRPC 5.3 makes supervising attorneys personally responsible for nonlawyer AI use.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions (SDRPC 1.5, 1.6). Language addressing whether client confidential information may be processed by third-party AI platforms, under what conditions, and how AI tool costs are billed. Reflects the consent requirements implicit in SDRPC 1.6.

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). Brief attorney note on any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content. Capture which tool, what tasks, and how output was verified.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client confidentiality consent (SDRPC 1.6). Written informed consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform. Document tool, information shared, and purpose.
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, review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders, case management orders, and chambers practices for AI disclosure requirements. Document the check.

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