Tennessee: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a Tennessee firm: No Tennessee bar opinion or court rule governs attorney AI use today, so ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the operative standard of care, and the bar-endorsed carrier (AIM) treats it that way. The most actionable obligation is verifying every citation and quotation in any AI-assisted filing before submission. The single biggest risk is treating the absence of a Tennessee rule as the absence of exposure: in a September 2025 order, Chief Judge Lipman of the W.D. Tenn. described the fictitious case citations produced by AI drafting as a “scourge,” and TRPC 3.3 and Rule 11 still apply.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and training records for attorneys and staff.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility has issued no formal ethics opinion on AI. As of September 2026, the TBPR formal opinions index lists no AI-specific opinion; the most recent entries (2025-F-171 on non-disparagement clauses, and 2025-F-172, withdrawn April 21, 2025) are unrelated. The Tennessee Bar Association’s AI Task Force, chaired by A.J. Bahou (Bradley), offers education and member resources but has published no formal recommendations. See Section 6 for pending activity.

What governs by default

The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct mirror the ABA Model Rules in all relevant respects. The underlying duties continue to apply: TRPC 1.1 (competence, including the duty to keep abreast of relevant technology), TRPC 1.6 (confidentiality of client information entered into third-party tools), TRPC 1.5 (reasonableness of fees where AI completes work in a fraction of the previous time), TRPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal, including verifying cited authorities), and TRPC 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision of lawyer and non-lawyer AI use).

Prior TBPR technology opinions (2015-F-159 on cloud storage, 2018-F-165 on legal services websites) confirm that the TRPC reaches new technology without a separate AI rule. Neither addresses generative AI directly.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) is the persuasive framework. AIM, the bar-endorsed Tennessee carrier, has published that “most states, including Alabama and Tennessee, have not issued formal guidelines” on lawyer AI use and directs attorneys to Op 512 as the interim standard. Op 512 holds that competence requires understanding AI capabilities and limitations. Confidentiality requires investigating a tool’s data practices before inputting client information. Supervision applies to AI output with the same rigor as junior associate work, candor places personal verification of AI-generated citations on the filing lawyer, and fees must remain reasonable where AI compresses time. Tennessee has not addressed the value-based fee question separately.

The TBA has offered a CLE course presenting the TBPR’s perspective on AI ethics (Litigation Practice Forum 2024: Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence from the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility); the course is no longer available for purchase and is educational signal, not regulatory command.

What federal courts in Tennessee require for AI use in filings

None of the three Tennessee federal districts has issued an AI-specific standing order or local rule amendment. As of September 2026, the E.D. Tenn., M.D. Tenn., and W.D. Tenn. local rules and administrative and standing-order lists contain no AI rule; individual judges’ practice pages were not all reviewed. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson, No. 2:23-cv-02186 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 11, 2025) (ECF No. 283), an order denying a pro se defendant’s post-judgment request that cited a nonexistent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman wrote: “The increased use by lawyers and non-lawyers of artificial intelligence to draft legal documents has resulted in a scourge of fictitious case citations in court documents in recent years.” The court warned that further filings with fictitious citations or quotations could draw sanctions, “including monetary ones.” That language is not a standing order and does not create a disclosure requirement, but it puts Tennessee federal practitioners on notice that the court treats fabricated citations as a Rule 11 problem regardless of how they were generated. See the tracker entry for the case.

What Tennessee state courts require for AI use in filings

As of September 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court has not adopted a statewide AI rule for attorneys. Firms should check trial-court local rules and individual judge orders at the opening of each matter.

What AI-related rules are pending in Tennessee?

The TBA AI Task Force remains active without a published formal report. On September 16, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court solicited public comment on potential regulatory reforms to increase access to legal representation (No. ADM2025-01403), including limited licensing of paraprofessionals, non-lawyer ownership of law firms, and alternative pathways to licensure. The order does not mention artificial intelligence. The comment deadline, originally March 16, 2026, was extended to April 30, 2026. As of September 2026 the court still lists the matter as proposed and out for public comment, with no resulting rule. It is not a professional conduct rule and does not currently regulate attorney conduct.

Tennessee has enacted two AI-adjacent statutes that do not govern attorney conduct directly but create new litigation exposure. The ELVIS Act (Pub. Ch. 588, HB 2091, signed 2024-03-21, effective 2024-07-01) extends protected personal rights to an individual’s voice, defined to include “a simulation of the voice,” and creates liability for making available technology whose “primary purpose or function” is producing an identifiable individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness without authorization. SB 1580 (Pub. Ch. 647, signed 2026-04-01, effective 2026-07-01) bars anyone who develops or deploys an AI system from advertising or representing that it “is or is able to act as a qualified mental health professional”; a violation is an unfair or deceptive practice under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and carries a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation. SB 2171 / HB 1898, which would have required large frontier AI developers to publish public safety plans, passed the House on 2026-04-16, but its Senate companion was re-referred to committee; the bill history records no later action and no public chapter, so it did not become law.

How do malpractice carriers in Tennessee treat AI use?

Tennessee attorneys are primarily served by Attorneys Insurance Mutual of the South (AIM, the TBA-endorsed bar-related mutual) and ALPS. Standard legal professional liability policies do not typically include an AI-specific exclusion, but coverage for AI-related claims depends on whether the attorney’s conduct constitutes “professional services” under the policy and whether AI output was reviewed. Carriers may argue that submitting AI output without review is intentional rather than negligent (intentional acts exclusion) or that allowing AI to make substantive legal judgments constitutes unauthorized practice of law (UPL exclusion). Confidentiality breaches resulting from client data entered into an unvetted AI tool may fall into a coverage gap between LPL and cyber liability. AIM has published that it treats Op 512 as the interim standard for Alabama and Tennessee attorneys; ALPS has published an analogous coverage analysis.

What does my Tennessee malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Tennessee carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard the carrier or broker will reference at renewal is ABA Formal Opinion 512, as AIM has stated explicitly. Plan on producing the following: a written AI use policy; vendor confidentiality review records for each AI tool (responsive to TRPC 1.6 and Op 512’s investigation requirement); citation verification logs for court filings (responsive to TRPC 3.3 and Judge Lipman’s W.D. Tenn. commentary); and supervision documentation under TRPC 5.1 and 5.3. Confirm application items directly with the broker.

What documentation should a Tennessee firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy naming approved tools, prohibited data inputs without vendor confidentiality vetting, and mandatory verification before AI output is used in client matters or filings. It tracks Op 512’s competence and confidentiality framework under TRPC 1.1 and 1.6.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist requiring all case citations, quotations, and statutory references in AI-assisted filings to be verified against primary sources before submission. Responsive to TRPC 3.3 and Judge Lipman’s W.D. Tenn. commentary.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log recording AI-related CLE attendance (TBPR programs, TBA TCAIL conference) and policy acknowledgment. It demonstrates ongoing competence under TRPC 1.1.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor confidentiality review log for each AI tool, recording evaluation of training data policies, storage, and third-party access consistent with TRPC 1.6 and Op 512.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering how supervising attorneys review AI-assisted work product from associates and non-lawyer staff under TRPC 5.1 and 5.3.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter clause disclosing that AI tools may be used in the matter, subject to firm confidentiality standards, with the attorney remaining responsible for all work product. It supports TRPC 1.4 and heads off fee disputes under TRPC 1.5.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter ELVIS Act and SB 1580 check confirming that any AI voice, likeness, or health-adjacent client communication does not trigger Tennessee’s voice-replication or mental-health-representation prohibitions (effective 2024-07-01 and 2026-07-01 respectively).
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic policy review keyed to TBA AI Task Force publications and any Tennessee Supreme Court rulemaking flowing from the regulatory-reform docket (No. ADM2025-01403).

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