Virginia: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a Virginia firm: Virginia is the rare state where a Supreme Court-approved ethics opinion expressly permits keeping non-hourly fees unchanged even when AI dramatically reduces time. LEO 1901 (approved November 24, 2025) rejects contrary views on this point; its proposed version named ABA Formal Opinion 512 and North Carolina 2024 FEO 1 as reaching a different conclusion. Billing flexibility does not relax accuracy: the VSB’s informal guidance says a lawyer must verify that any AI-produced citations are accurate and real. The biggest day-to-day exposure is the E.D. Va. patchwork: Chief Judge Lauck applies an AI standing order to all civil cases assigned to her, while other judges (including Young, Novak, and Payne) have issued case-specific AI orders that vary in scope. In state court, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond requires an AI disclosure certification on AI-assisted filings.

Start with: a written AI use policy modeled on the VBA Model AI Policy, a citation verification log keyed to the VSB informal guidance, and an E.D. Va. / W.D. Va. judge-specific AI order check at case intake.

Virginia State Bar LEO 1901 and informal guidance

Citation: Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Approved by VSB Council June 12, 2025; approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia November 24, 2025. Final approved opinion (PDF). Proposed opinion (PDF).

Status: Formal Legal Ethics Opinion, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

What it requires

• Time-based fees may only reflect actual hours spent. A lawyer may not charge hourly time the lawyer did not spend.
• Rule 1.5 permits non-hourly fee structures accounting for skill, judgment, experience, and results obtained, even when AI dramatically reduced time. A lawyer is not ethically required to reduce a flat or value-based fee solely because AI accelerated the work.
• The “skill requisite to perform the legal service properly” may increase when using AI. Expertise in selecting, prompting, verifying, and integrating AI outputs is compensable.
• Effective AI use depends on “maintaining sufficient domain expertise to identify AI hallucinations or errors.”
• These principles extend to other technological tools producing comparable productivity gains.

What it recommends

• When AI meaningfully increases efficiency, the client may need additional explanation of why the lawyer’s experience, technical skills, or other efficiencies contribute to the value of the services, particularly under alternative fee arrangements.

Notable divergences

The approved opinion states that “Contrary views fail to appreciate the value of advancing technology” without naming them. The proposed opinion (March 2025) named ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) and North Carolina 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 as reaching a different conclusion on flat and contingent fees. Virginia is more permissive on AI-enhanced billing than those authorities.

Notable gaps

LEO 1901 is focused on Rule 1.5. The opinion does not address which AI tools or vendor types are appropriate. Other unaddressed topics include client consent for confidential matters, data residency or cloud security standards, mandatory disclosure in court filings, conflicts between vendor terms and Rule 1.6, and AI use in intake or screening.

VSB informal guidance

Posted to the VSB Ethics and Conduct page by February 2024 and updated since (no opinion number; informal practice guidance, not binding precedent). Lawyers’ basic ethical obligations are unchanged by AI. Lawyers must vet how AI providers handle client data with the same diligence applied to any vendor. There is “no per se requirement to inform a client about the use of generative AI” in a matter. As with work done by software or a nonlawyer assistant, “a lawyer has a duty to review the work done and verify that any citations are accurate (and real).” Supervisory lawyers should consider whether Rule 5.1 calls for a firm AI policy. A court’s AI disclosure requirement must be followed under Rule 3.4(d). The current version also warns about AI-enhanced browsers and “prompt injection,” and cites LEO 1901 on billing.

Proposed LEO 1902 (May 2026)

On May 27, 2026, the VSB released proposed LEO 1902 for comment (comments were due July 10, 2026): Duties When Opposing Counsel Fails to Review and Correct Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Outputs; Diligence; Competence; Duty to Report. The draft concludes that whether to notify the court or a disciplinary authority of an opponent lawyer’s apparently AI-hallucinated errors “requires the attorney to use professional judgment, taking into account the seriousness of the errors and other relevant circumstances.” As of September 2026 no Council or Supreme Court action on it has been found.

VBA Model AI Policy (May 2024)

The Virginia Bar Association’s Special Committee on Small-Firm and Solo Practice published a Version 1.0 Model Artificial Intelligence Policy for Law Firms in May 2024. It covers training, AI in decision making, confidentiality, validation and oversight, firm authorization, client authorization, and open communication. VBA is a voluntary membership organization. This template is persuasive, not binding. Model AI Policy (PDF). VBA AI resources page.

What federal courts in Virginia require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order exists in either E.D. Va. or W.D. Va. Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck’s standing order of September 1, 2026 applies to all civil cases assigned to her: a party that uses generative AI to prepare a filing must identify that use in the filing and certify that it reviewed all citations for accuracy. Other E.D. Va. judges have issued case-specific AI orders, and requirements vary by judge. Judge Roderick C. Young (JCAI Inc. v. Wiseleap Solutions Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00350, ECF No. 32, Jan. 10, 2024) and Judge David J. Novak (Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00581, ECF No. 147, Jan. 29, 2024) each directed that a party using AI to prepare a filing “must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.” Senior Judge Henry E. Hudson’s standard Pretrial Schedule A carries a similar identify-and-certify requirement. Judge Robert E. Payne required all attorneys and pro se filers in Powhatan Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Skinger, No. 3:24-cv-00874, ECF No. 194 (June 30, 2025) to certify that no AI was used in research or drafting other than AI embedded in Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg, and that every statement and citation had been checked. The same certification appears in his standard Pretrial Schedule A. Firms may wish to check the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter.

What Virginia state courts require for AI use in filings

Virginia has no statewide court rule on AI in attorney filings. At the circuit level, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond adopted a local rule on artificial intelligence, entered January 13, 2026, that requires attorneys and pro se litigants to include at the end of, or attach to, any AI-assisted filing a certification disclosing the AI use, and to certify AI use in proposed exhibits ten days before any trial or evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use govern judicial system employees, judicial officers, and court-issued device users. The rules prohibit autonomous AI decision-making and require human decision-maker involvement for AI-assisted judicial outputs. They do not directly regulate attorney conduct in filings.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Virginia?

In Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd., No. 5:21-cv-00064, ECF No. 177 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2024), Judge Thomas T. Cullen found that the plaintiff’s brief “cites multiple cases and quotations that the court, and MSA, could not find,” discrepancies the defendant had attributed to “ChatGPT run amok.” The court wrote that “If counsel relies on artificial intelligence or other technology to draft a filing, the attorney is still responsible for ensuring the filing is accurate and does not contain fabricated caselaw or quotations,” and ordered the plaintiff’s attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c) or referred to their state bars. See the tracker entry. Other Virginia federal matters in the tracker include Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States (E.D. Va. 2026) and Powhatan Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Skinger (E.D. Va. 2025).

What AI-related rules are pending in Virginia?

HB 2094 (High-Risk AI Act, 2025 Regular Session) would have mandated AI risk disclosure in legal services, risk management plans, and algorithmic discrimination prevention. Governor Youngkin vetoed it on March 24, 2025. The veto was sustained April 2, 2025. No AI bill touching attorney conduct was enacted in the 2026 session.

HB 1642 (2025 Acts ch. 637, codified at Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-11.14), effective July 1, 2025, governs decisions on pre-trial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. Such decisions must be made by a human decision-maker. Any AI-based tool recommendation must be subject to challenge or objection permitted by law. Defense attorneys may challenge AI-based tool recommendations used in criminal decisions. Firms doing criminal defense should understand AI deployments in local courts.

How do malpractice carriers in Virginia treat AI use?

The research note does not document a Virginia-affiliated carrier with published AI risk guidance. The VSB informal guidance’s citation-verification duty establishes the substantive standard. A malpractice claim arising from AI-related error would be evaluated against that standard. LEO 1901 addresses fees only: value-based billing is permissible, and nothing in it relaxes a lawyer’s responsibility for output quality.

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

No Virginia carrier has published AI-specific renewal application items in the research record. The substantive standard the firm prepares against is the VSB informal guidance plus LEO 1901 on fees: documented written policy, citation verification, vendor diligence, and court-specific disclosure where applicable. Confirm application items directly with the firm’s broker. Firms with criminal defense practices should additionally be ready to discuss their workflow for challenging AI-based tool recommendations under Va. Code § 19.2-11.14.

What documentation should a Virginia firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational items.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy structured on the VBA Model AI Policy: approved tools, data input restrictions, verification requirements, supervision protocols, and billing treatment. Anchors compliance with the VSB informal guidance and LEO 1901.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log documenting that citations in any AI-assisted filing were independently verified before submission. Satisfies the verification duty in the VSB informal guidance.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) E.D. Va. / W.D. Va. judge-specific AI order check at case intake. Confirm whether the assigned judge has an AI disclosure order and log the result. If an order exists, file the required disclosure and certification.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Two documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence record for each AI tool used on client matters. Cover data handling, confidentiality, retention, and self-learning status. Date and update annually or when terms change.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records showing the firm’s lawyers and staff have reviewed LEO 1901, the VSB informal guidance, and the firm’s written AI policy. Supports Rule 5.1 and 5.3 supervision obligations.

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 provisions for value-based or flat-fee matters. Explain that fees reflect the value of the work product, the complexity of the issues, and the results achieved. This is consistent with LEO 1901’s guidance on client communication under alternative fee arrangements.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Disclosure decision log recording, for each matter, whether AI was used and whether client disclosure was made. VSB informal guidance imposes no per se disclosure requirement, but logging the decision creates a defensible record.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for new VSB guidance (including any final LEO 1902), new E.D. Va. and W.D. Va. judge orders, HB 1642 developments, and updated vendor terms.

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