Vermont: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Vermont firm: No AI disclosure requirement exists in any Vermont or District of Vermont court today; enforcement runs entirely through existing Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct (1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3) as interpreted by the Vermont Judiciary Committee’s First Annual Report and ongoing Bar Counsel commentary. The most actionable obligation is verifying every AI-generated citation before filing or delivery; the most actionable risk is a confidentiality violation from inputting client data into a consumer-tier AI tool without reviewing data retention terms. The Bennington County hallucination incident produced no formal discipline, but it is now part of the Vermont public record and signals how a future incident will be evaluated.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a vendor diligence record covering each AI tool’s data retention and training terms.

What governs by default

The Vermont Bar has issued no formal ethics opinion on AI. Vermont Bar Counsel Michael Kennedy has stated publicly, in his unofficial Ethical Grounds blog (2024-05-16), that amending the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct is unnecessary because existing rules already cover AI use. The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct named in the page-level applicable-rules block apply directly. No Vermont RPC has been amended to add AI-specific language as of 2026-04-23.

Established by the Vermont Supreme Court, the First Annual Report of the Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (2025-03-01) is the operative interpretive document. Bar Counsel Kennedy chaired the Disciplinary Rules Subcommittee. The subcommittee found that “the rules establish the contours of conduct that is either authorized or prohibited, and that a lawyer’s or judge’s use or misuse of GAI falls within the confines of those contours.” It concluded that “amendments to the rules are not warranted as a result, but that guidance for the bar and for judges is appropriate.”

The report’s guidance maps AI obligations onto specific Rules. Rule 1.1: the duty of competence requires lawyers “to be knowledgeable about [GAI’s] risks and benefits.” Rule 1.4: a lawyer “might consider disclosing to a client the lawyer’s intent to use GAI, along with the nature and extent of the use.” Rule 1.6: a lawyer should understand “that the use of GAI can result in an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information” and should engage in “careful review of a GAI tool’s Terms of Service.” Rule 1.5: the report recognizes “the use or non-use of GAI can have a direct impact on the amount of time spent on a matter,” with different billing considerations described. Rules 5.1 and 5.3 cover supervision of others’ GAI use. Rules 3.1 and 3.3 cover meritorious claims and complying with court orders, addressed in the report’s “Miscellaneous” section. The report is non-binding guidance, not a rule amendment or a formal ethics opinion.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) has not been formally endorsed by the Vermont Bar. The Judiciary Committee report is the operative interpretive anchor. Bar Counsel has continued publishing on AI competence and confidentiality through Ethical Grounds, including Competence, AI, and the Attorney-Client Privilege (2026-02-17).

What federal courts in Vermont require for AI use in filings

Through April 2026, no standing order from any active District of Vermont judge requires AI certification or AI disclosure. Verify the assigned judge’s individual standing orders at vtd.uscourts.gov at the opening of each new matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support, and legal contentions must be warranted.

What Vermont state courts require for AI use in filings

No Vermont state court has issued a standing order specifically requiring disclosure of AI use in filings. The Vermont Judiciary’s promulgated and proposed rule amendments do not include an AI-specific disclosure requirement as of this entry’s date.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Vermont?

In early 2026 Rutland attorney Thomas Lamar Enzor used AI to help draft a motion in a Bennington County DUI case. The motion cited real cases, but the AI-generated quotations attributed to those cases were fabricated. As reported by VTDigger (2026-03-01), Judge Jennifer Barrett identified five errors in the filing and allowed Lamar Enzor to file a supplemental motion to correct them. He reported facing no other consequences. The matter was not publicly referred to the Professional Responsibility Board.

Significance for Vermont firms: the absence of formal discipline in this instance is not a permission slip. The conduct pattern parallels People v. Crabill (Colorado, 2023), which produced a 90-day suspension. Vermont has no prior AI-specific disciplinary precedent to distinguish. The PRB retains authority to suspend an attorney’s license on a complaint by a judge or a client.

What AI-related rules are pending in Vermont?

No Vermont legislation specifically targeting attorney or law firm AI use has been enacted or introduced. Two broader AI bills affecting developers and deployers, H.341 (high-risk AI safety standards) and H.340 (automated decision systems), were introduced 2025-02-25 and stalled in the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. Neither is enacted. H.710 (2024), imposing a broad developer duty of care, also died in committee. S.23 (AI deepfake political advertising disclosure) was enacted but is limited to elections law and does not affect law firm practice. Vermont’s Act 132 (2022) governs state government AI use only and imposes no obligation on private firms.

The Vermont Bar has not announced a formal AI opinion in progress. The Judiciary Committee is expected to issue further annual reports under its Supreme Court mandate.

How do malpractice carriers in Vermont treat AI use?

ALPS Corporation is the VBA-endorsed professional liability carrier for Vermont attorneys and the dominant carrier for solo and small firms statewide. ALPS has published national guidance noting that AI-related claims may not be explicitly covered by existing policies. Some firms will only discover coverage gaps after a claim is presented. The ABA Journal has reported the same conclusion in its 2025 coverage piece. Carriers are beginning to add AI-specific riders or endorsements and to ask about firm-wide AI governance practices at renewal.

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

ALPS has not published the specific items it will request on the Vermont application for the 2026-2027 cycle. The substantive standard is set by the Judiciary Committee First Annual Report and Bar Counsel’s interpretive commentary, both anchored to the existing Vermont RPCs. Plan on producing five items. First, a written AI use policy. Second, a citation verification protocol. Third, vendor due-diligence records covering data retention and training terms. Fourth, attorney and staff training logs. Fifth, confirmation from ALPS or the broker that AI-related errors are covered under the current policy or by available endorsement. Confirm application items directly with ALPS Vermont or your broker. The linked page describes the substantive obligations the application will measure against.

What documentation should a Vermont firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational items.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 5.1, 5.3; Judiciary Committee Report). Enumerate approved tools. Prohibit submitting unverified AI output to courts or clients. Prohibit inputting client-identifying information into consumer-tier tools without enterprise terms. Assign verification responsibility per matter.
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-generated citation and quotation against Westlaw, Lexis, or the primary source. The Bennington County incident makes this concretely Vermont-specific.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Date, attendees, and content of AI training: hallucination risks, Rule 3.3 candor obligations, verification procedures, confidentiality under Rule 1.6, and the firm’s AI use policy.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Three documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record (Rule 1.6). For each AI platform: documented review of terms of service, training-data use, opt-out status, data retention, and whether an enterprise agreement prohibits training on inputs. Update when vendor terms change.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (Rules 5.1, 5.3). Approved tools, prohibited uses, required attorney review before AI-generated work product reaches a court or client, and training requirements for associates, paralegals, and legal assistants.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing policy for AI efficiency (Rule 1.5). Written policy addressing how AI-generated time savings are handled for hourly clients. Communicate to billing attorneys. The Judiciary Committee Report notes that “the use or non-use of GAI can have a direct impact on the amount of time spent on a matter,” and outlines billing considerations under Rule 1.5’s prohibition on unreasonable fees.

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 (Rules 1.1, 3.1, 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 and engagement letter language (Rules 1.4, 1.6). Engagement letter provision disclosing categories of AI use and confidentiality safeguards. Document written informed consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At each new federal matter in D. Vt., review the assigned judge’s individual standing 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.