West Virginia: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a West Virginia firm: L.E.O. 24-01 (June 14, 2024) is the Lawyer Disciplinary Board’s guidance on generative AI. It is advisory, and it states that a lawyer “should obtain approval from the client before using generative AI, and this consent must be informed and should be confirmed in writing.” It also covers confidentiality, supervision, verification, and billing, and cautions lawyers to check each court’s rules. In federal court, an announcement of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reminds all litigants of Rule 9011 and states that they must verify cited cases and quotations, and the Northern District restricts AI use with criminal discovery.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a client consent record for matters where generative AI may be used, and a citation verification log for any AI-generated content in filings.

L.E.O. 24-01: Artificial Intelligence

Citation: West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01, approved by the Board and entered June 14, 2024 (signed by Chairperson Nicole A. Cofer). Primary source PDF. ODC opinion index.

Status: Formal advisory opinion. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s index states that “Legal Ethics Opinions are advisory only and are not binding upon the Supreme Court of Appeals”; opinions issued under Rule 2.16 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure bind the Hearing Panel only in a later proceeding involving the requesting lawyer. As of 2026-09-30, the index lists no later ethics opinion.

What it addresses

• Court rules. There is nothing in the Rules “that per se prohibits a lawyer from using AI,” but “lawyers are cautioned to check for jurisdiction specific rules or standing orders” that prohibit AI use or require disclosure or certification of human verification.
• Competence (Rule 1.1). Lawyers should have a basic understanding of the AI programs that may benefit their clients and use AI “to supplement, not replace their own legal reasoning.” “Lawyers must understand that generative AI can hallucinate.”
• Diligence (Rule 1.3). AI resources “should be regularly monitored and assessed to minimize the risk of errors or biases.”
• Communication (Rule 1.4). “[A] lawyer needs to consult with a client prior to delegating certain tasks to a generative AI program or process.” “A lawyer should obtain approval from the client before using generative AI, and this consent must be informed and should be confirmed in writing. The discussion should include the risks and limitations of the generative AI tool.”
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6). Lawyers “should familiarize themselves with its terms of use and privacy policies before using the service,” should ask what information will be provided, how it will be stored, what security is in place, and who will have access, and “Generative AI should not be used in the representation unless the lawyer is confident that the client’s confidential information will be secure.” L.E.O. 2012-01, on electronic file storage, “is instructive.”
• Supervision (Rules 5.1, 5.3). In 2015 the Court retitled Rule 5.3 “Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance”; the Board reads the rule as covering nonlawyers “whether human or not.” Lawyers “are obligated to supervise the work of the AI used in the provision of legal services.”
• Accuracy (Rules 1.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1). “Lawyers have a duty to make sure the work product produced by AI is accurate and complete.” Lawyers “should view AI at best as a secondary source and should never be relied upon as the primary source itself.”
• Fees (Rules 1.5, 8.4(c), 8.4(d)). Efficiency gains “must not result in double billing for services or falsely inflated claims of time.”

Rules cited

WV RPC 1.1 (Comment 8), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.18, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), with a cross-reference to L.E.O. 2012-01 (electronic file storage).

Notable gaps

The opinion does not address affirmative disclosure of AI use to tribunals absent a court rule or order, and uses “should be confirmed in writing” rather than “must” for written consent. As of 2026-09-30, no follow-on opinion has issued.

JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (judicial ethics)

Issued October 13, 2023 by the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission. Primary source PDF. The Commission concluded that “a judge may use AI for research purposes but may not use it to decide the outcome of a case,” and that “[t]he use of AI in drafting opinions or orders should be done with extreme caution.” It tells judges to “think of AI as a law clerk” and states that “[t]he responsibility for the finished product rests solely with the judge.” As of 2026-09-30, the Commission’s advisory opinion index lists no other AI opinion.

What federal courts in West Virginia require for AI use in filings

Neither federal district court has a district-wide AI standing order governing filings; the operative default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

• Bankruptcy Court, S.D. W. Va. An announcement posted April 15, 2026 reminds “all litigants, whether unrepresented or represented,” that Rule 9011 applies and states that “all litigants are required to independently verify that the case citations exist and support the proposition for which they are cited, and that any quotations are accurate.” It lists potential sanctions including fines, filing restrictions, CLE for attorneys, and referral to the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, and requires no disclosure.
• N.D. W. Va., criminal cases. Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh’s standing order of June 16, 2026 governs AI use with discovery in all criminal cases: no member of the defense team may expose designated Sensitive Materials to any AI tool without the government’s prior written consent, a consent request must identify and describe the tool and certify that it does not “(i) retain or use any Sensitive Materials for model training, nor (ii) expose any Sensitive Materials to third parties not authorized under this Order to receive such materials,” defense counsel must certify confidentiality measures and deletion at the end of the case, and Sensitive Materials may never go into a publicly accessible AI system that trains on submitted data.

Individual judges may issue case-specific orders, so the assigned judge’s orders are worth checking at the start of each matter, as L.E.O. 24-01 itself cautions.

What West Virginia state courts require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, no court-wide AI rule or standing order applies in West Virginia state courts; none of the Supreme Court of Appeals’ 2026 rules orders addresses AI in filings. Judges have addressed AI use case by case: in Jon H. v. Lydia M., the Intermediate Court of Appeals recorded that a Kanawha County family court directed counsel to file an AI disclosure after counsel reported that her staff had used AI to draft a motion. The Supreme Court of Appeals’ August 25, 2026 order approving amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct (No. 25-882) added to Rule 2.5 Comment [1] that judicial competence “includes knowledge as to all relevant technology”; that is a judicial, not attorney, obligation.

What AI-related rules are pending in West Virginia?

No AI rule for attorneys or court filings is pending as of 2026-09-30, and the 2026 regular legislative session enacted no bill on attorney AI use or court filings.

HB 5690 (approved by the Governor March 27, 2024; effective June 2, 2024) created the West Virginia Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, “organized within the Office of the Governor” with administrative and technical support from the Office of Technology, and required a report by July 1, 2025. HB 3187 (approved April 25, 2025) added economic-opportunity work and annual reporting, and provides that “The Task Force shall terminate on, July 1, 2027.” Neither bill addresses attorney conduct.

How do malpractice carriers in West Virginia treat AI use?

ALPS is the West Virginia State Bar’s endorsed malpractice carrier. Its August 2025 article on generative AI 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,” while discussing intentional-act, unauthorized-practice, and confidentiality exclusions as possible issues. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located.

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

No West Virginia-specific AI application items published by ALPS were located. Firms that want to be ready for questions may wish to have on hand a written AI use policy, client consent records, vendor due diligence records, a verification and review log, and a record of court-rule checks, all measured against L.E.O. 24-01. Confirm application items directly with ALPS or the firm’s broker.

What documentation should a West Virginia firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 5.1, 5.3, 1.1). Approved tools, what client information may or may not be entered, who reviews AI output before use in work product, and how AI errors will be identified and corrected.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client consent documentation (Rule 1.4 per L.E.O. 24-01). A per-matter record of the client’s informed consent, covering the AI tools that may be used and their risks and limitations. The opinion says consent “should be confirmed in writing,” and a written record is the simplest way to show it.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Verification and review log (Rules 1.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3). Documentation that an attorney reviewed AI-generated content, verified citations and quotations against primary sources, and approved the final product before filing or delivery. In S.D. W. Va. bankruptcy cases, the court’s announcement states the same expectation.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) AI vendor due diligence file (Rule 1.6). For each approved AI service: terms of use and privacy policy reviewed at adoption, how data is stored and who can access it, any data processing agreements, and the date of review. L.E.O. 24-01 treats the cloud-storage analysis in L.E.O. 2012-01 as instructive.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Training records (Rule 1.1 Comment 8). Date, attendees, and content of AI ethics and technology competence training, including L.E.O. 24-01.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing review procedure (Rules 1.5, 8.4(c)). Confirm that AI efficiency gains do not result in double billing or inflated time.

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) Court rule check log (per L.E.O. 24-01). Before filing in a new court or before a new judge, note whether that court has an AI rule, order, or announcement. For N.D. W. Va. criminal matters, also record whether any AI tool will touch Sensitive Materials from discovery and, if so, the government’s written consent under the court’s June 2026 standing order.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for new ODC ethics opinions, JIC advisory opinions, court orders, and ALPS materials.

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