West Virginia: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney West Virginia firm: L.E.O. 24-01 (June 14, 2024) is binding advisory guidance from the Lawyer Disciplinary Board and is among the most explicit state AI ethics opinions in the country, notable nationally for requiring that client consent to generative AI use be informed and confirmed in writing. No court-wide AI standing orders exist in West Virginia state or federal courts, but the opinion itself directs lawyers to check for jurisdiction-specific orders before filing. The single biggest risk is filing or advising without documented written client consent and verified output, which the opinion frames as a candor and supervision violation.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a written client consent form for matters where 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 and entered by Chairperson Nicole A. Cofer on June 14, 2024. Primary source PDF. ODC opinion index.

Status: Formal advisory opinion. Advisory only, not binding upon the Supreme Court of Appeals, but carries weight in disciplinary proceedings.

What it requires

The opinion sets six requirements.

• Client consent (Rule 1.4): lawyers must consult with clients before delegating tasks to generative AI, analogous to outsourcing legal support services. Client consent must be informed and confirmed in writing. The discussion must include the risks and limitations of the specific tool.
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6): before using a generative AI service for client matters, lawyers must review its terms of use and privacy policies. Lawyers may not use generative AI for a representation unless confident the client’s confidential information will be secure. The lawyer must inquire what information is provided, how it is stored, what security measures are in place, and who will have access.
• Supervision (Rules 5.1, 5.3): lawyers must supervise AI output and understand the technology well enough to ensure ethical compliance. Rule 5.3 was amended in 2015 to expressly encompass nonhuman assistance.
• Verification (Rules 3.2, 3.3, 4.1): lawyers must verify AI output before filing. Failure to verify can violate candor to the tribunal, frivolous-claims, and truthfulness duties.
• Court orders: lawyers must check for jurisdiction-specific standing orders requiring AI disclosure or certification before filing.
• Fees and billing (Rules 1.5, 8.4(c)): efficiency gains from AI must not result in double billing or falsely inflated time.

What it recommends

• Maintain a basic understanding of the AI programs in use; AI must supplement, not replace, the lawyer’s own legal reasoning.
• Regularly monitor and assess AI outputs to minimize errors and bias.
• View AI “at best as a secondary source and should never be relied upon as the primary source itself.” The opinion notes plainly: “Generative AI can hallucinate.”

Rules cited

WV RPC Rules 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), 8.4(d). The opinion cross-references L.E.O. 2012-01 (cloud storage).

Notable gaps

The opinion has four notable gaps. Affirmative disclosure to tribunals absent a court standing order is not addressed. The written consent requirement uses “should be confirmed in writing” rather than “must,” creating some ambiguity. Firm-wide AI governance obligations for managing partners are not addressed. The opinion pre-dates ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) and no follow-on opinion has issued.

JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (judicial ethics)

Issued November 2023 by the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission. Primary source PDF (image-encoded but currently resolves; not included in the JIC’s June 6, 2023 retirement order, which predates 2023-22’s issuance). The opinion holds that judges may use AI for research, but should never use AI to reach a conclusion on the outcome of a case. It frames AI as a “law clerk” whose work the judge remains fully responsible for. For attorneys, this signals that West Virginia judges are likely to scrutinize AI-assisted filings closely, reinforcing L.E.O. 24-01’s verification duties.

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

As of April 2026, no district-wide AI standing order exists in either federal district (S.D.W. Va. or N.D.W. Va.). The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Individual judges in Charleston, Clarksburg, Wheeling, Martinsburg, and Elkins may have case-specific orders not captured in general trackers. Firms should review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders at the opening of each new federal matter, as L.E.O. 24-01 itself directs.

What West Virginia state courts require for AI use in filings

As of April 2026, no court-wide AI standing order exists for West Virginia state courts. L.E.O. 24-01 acknowledges that such orders exist in other jurisdictions and directs lawyers to check before filing.

What AI-related rules are pending in West Virginia?

As of April 2026, no West Virginia legislation directly regulating attorney use of AI has been enacted or is pending. HB 5690 (enacted April 22, 2024) created the West Virginia Task Force on Artificial Intelligence within the Office of Technology. Its scope: government AI policy and consumer data protection, with recommendations due by mid-2025. HB 3187 (signed April 25, 2025) expanded the task force agenda. The agenda now includes economic opportunities and annual reporting. 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 and has published separate guidance on AI coverage gaps. The written client consent, vendor diligence, and supervision requirements in L.E.O. 24-01 are precisely the documented procedures carriers will scrutinize at renewal. A malpractice claim arising from unreviewed AI output, hallucinated citations, or undisclosed AI use without written consent will be evaluated against L.E.O. 24-01.

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

ALPS has not published the specific items it requests on West Virginia applications. L.E.O. 24-01 establishes the substantive standard. Plan on producing five items: a written AI use policy, a written client consent form, vendor due diligence records, a verification and review log, and a court standing order check log. Confirm application items directly with ALPS or your broker.

What documentation should a West Virginia 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, 1.1). Approved tools list. What client information may or may not be entered. Who reviews AI output before use in work product. 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). Per-matter written disclosure and consent identifying the AI tool(s) that may be used, the risks and limitations including hallucination risk, the data security measures in place, and the client’s right to withhold consent. L.E.O. 24-01 explicitly requires written consent. Treat it as mandatory for carrier purposes despite the “should be confirmed in writing” phrasing.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Verification and review log (Rules 1.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3). Documentation that a supervising attorney reviewed AI-generated content, verified all citations against primary sources, and approved the final product before filing or delivery.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Three documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) AI vendor due diligence file (Rule 1.6). For each approved AI service: terms of service and privacy policy reviewed at adoption, documentation of data storage and access, any data processing agreements, and date of review. This mirrors the framework already required for cloud storage under L.E.O. 2012-01.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) CLE and training records (Rule 1.1 Comment 8). Date, attendees, and content of AI ethics and technology competence training, including L.E.O. 24-01’s requirements.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing review procedure (Rules 1.5, 8.4(c)). Pass AI efficiency savings through to the client rather than billing at the same rate as manual research.

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 standing order check log (per L.E.O. 24-01 directive). Before any filing in a new court or before a new judge, write a brief file note. Confirm whether that court has issued an AI disclosure standing order.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for updated WV ODC guidance, JIC advisory opinions, ALPS materials, and any new federal or state court orders. L.E.O. 24-01 pre-dates ABA Formal Opinion 512; expect follow-on guidance.

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