Iowa AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Iowa attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practices must navigate ethical obligations under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. While the Iowa State Bar Association has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the established ethical framework provides clear direction on competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision as applied to AI tool use.

Current AI Guidance Status

#

Iowa State Bar Association

#

As of 2025, the Iowa State Bar Association (ISBA) has not published formal guidance specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, or similar large language models. The ISBA provides ethics resources and CLE programming on technology issues, but no formal AI ethics opinion has been issued.

Current Status: No AI-specific formal guidance Governing Rules: Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct Regulatory Authority: Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board

Iowa attorneys may seek informal guidance from the ISBA Ethics Committee on specific questions about applying professional conduct rules to AI use.

Iowa Supreme Court

#

The Iowa Supreme Court has exclusive authority over attorney regulation in Iowa. As of 2025, the Court has not issued orders or amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically addressing AI. Existing rules on competence, confidentiality, and candor apply to all aspects of legal practice, including AI use.

Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and AI

#

Iowa’s Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the ABA Model Rules, create the ethical framework for AI use.

Rule 32:1.1 - Competence

#

Iowa Rule 32:1.1 establishes the competence standard:

Technological Competence:

Comment [8] to Iowa Rule 32:1.1 requires lawyers to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” This duty directly applies to AI.

AI Competence Requirements:

• Understanding AI capabilities and limitations before use
• Knowing that generative AI can produce “hallucinations”, fabricated information presented as fact
• Recognizing that AI may create fake case citations, quotes, and legal rules
• Developing skill in effective prompting and critical evaluation of outputs
• Staying current on AI technology developments and associated risks

Examples of Incompetent AI Use:

• Submitting AI-generated briefs without reviewing for accuracy
• Relying on AI case citations without verification
• Using AI for complex analysis beyond its reliable capabilities
• Failing to understand that AI outputs require human verification

Rule 32:1.3 - Diligence

#

Iowa attorneys must pursue matters with reasonable diligence and promptness:

• AI use should enhance, not impede, diligent representation
• Unfamiliarity with AI causing delays may violate diligence duties
• Time for verification must be built into AI-assisted workflows
• AI efficiency gains should benefit client service quality

Rule 32:1.4 - Communication

#

Client communication duties may extend to AI use:

Disclosure May Be Appropriate When:

• Clients specifically ask about technology or methods used
• AI use materially affects case strategy or costs
• Confidential information will be inputted into AI systems
• AI use affects fee arrangements

Best Practices:

• Address AI use policies in engagement letters
• Discuss AI use during initial client consultations when relevant
• Respond honestly to client inquiries about AI
• Explain billing implications of AI-driven efficiency

Rule 32:1.6 - Confidentiality of Information

#

Iowa’s confidentiality rule is critical for AI compliance:

AI and Confidentiality Concerns:

Inputting client information into AI systems raises significant confidentiality issues:

1. Data Storage: AI platforms may retain inputted information
2. Model Training: Some AI providers use inputs to train their systems
3. Third-Party Access: AI providers and subcontractors may access data
4. Security Risks: AI platforms face potential cybersecurity breaches
5. Cross-User Disclosure: AI may incorporate inputs into other users’ responses

Protective Measures:

• Carefully review AI platform Terms of Service and privacy policies
• Use enterprise AI versions with data protection agreements
• Avoid inputting confidential data into consumer AI tools
• Anonymize or redact client-identifying information
• Consider obtaining informed consent for AI use with client data
• Document assessments of AI platform security measures

Rule 32:1.5 - Fees

#

Iowa attorneys must charge reasonable fees, affecting AI billing:

Fee Principles:

• Fees must be reasonable considering all relevant factors
• Time saved through AI efficiency should not be billed to clients
• Actual time spent on AI-assisted work is billable
• Time for prompting, reviewing, verifying, and editing is compensable

Practical Application: If a research task traditionally taking 6 hours requires 90 minutes with AI assistance (including prompting, review, and verification), bill for the 90 minutes of actual work.

Fee Agreement Recommendations:

• Address AI use in client engagement letters
• Explain how AI affects hourly billing calculations
• Consider flat-fee or value-based arrangements
• Maintain transparency about AI efficiency benefits

Rule 32:3.3 - Candor Toward the Tribunal

#

This rule is essential for AI-assisted court filings:

Requirements:

• Attorneys must not make false statements of law or fact to tribunals
• Fabricated case citations violate candor obligations
• AI “hallucinations” submitted to courts are violations regardless of intent
• All AI-generated content must be verified before submission

Verification Protocol:

1. Confirm every case citation exists using Westlaw or Lexis
2. Verify quoted language matches original sources exactly
3. Check that holdings are accurately characterized
4. Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authorities
5. Review for logical consistency and accuracy

Rule 32:5.1 - Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers

#

Senior lawyers have supervisory duties:

• Establish firm-wide AI use policies
• Make reasonable efforts to ensure lawyers comply with Rules when using AI
• Create verification requirements for AI-assisted work product
• Provide training on ethical AI use
• Monitor compliance with professional conduct obligations

Rule 32:5.3 - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

#

AI may be analogized to a nonlawyer assistant:

• Attorneys must appropriately supervise AI outputs
• Work product cannot be entirely delegated to AI without review
• Final responsibility for AI-assisted work rests with the attorney
• Staff using AI require training and supervision

Iowa Court Considerations

#

Iowa Supreme Court

#

The Iowa Supreme Court has not issued AI-specific orders or rules. However:

• Existing rules on accuracy and candor apply to all filings
• Attorneys remain responsible for submitted content regardless of AI use
• Sanctions authority exists for fabricated citations or false statements

Iowa Court of Appeals

#

The Iowa Court of Appeals similarly has not adopted AI-specific requirements but retains authority to address AI-related misconduct through existing procedural and ethical rules.

Iowa District Courts

#

Individual district court judges have not issued AI-specific standing orders as of 2025. Attorneys should monitor for local developments and comply with any specific requirements imposed.

Federal Courts in Iowa

#

Iowa attorneys practicing in federal court should monitor:

Northern District of Iowa: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Southern District of Iowa: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: No AI-specific certification requirement as of 2025

Federal courts in other circuits have adopted AI disclosure and certification requirements. Iowa federal practitioners should anticipate similar developments.

Special Considerations for Iowa Practice

#

Agricultural Law

#

Iowa’s significant agricultural sector creates unique AI considerations:

• AI may not accurately reflect Iowa-specific agricultural law nuances
• Farm tenancy, drainage districts, and agricultural contracts require specialized knowledge
• USDA program regulations may not be current in AI training data
• Commodity and grain transactions involve specialized legal frameworks

Best Practices:

• Exercise extra caution with AI for agricultural matters
• Verify AI outputs against Iowa-specific agricultural law sources
• Consult Iowa statutes and administrative rules directly
• Treat AI as a preliminary tool requiring substantial human verification

Rural Practice Considerations

#

Iowa’s rural legal community may find AI beneficial but must remain cautious:

• AI can help address resource limitations in smaller communities
• Limited local law library access makes online verification essential
• Pro bono and legal aid work may benefit from AI efficiency
• Human judgment remains essential regardless of location

Administrative Proceedings

#

Iowa has numerous administrative agencies with specialized procedures:

• Iowa Utilities Board proceedings require specialized knowledge
• Workers’ compensation before the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation
• Environmental matters before the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
• AI may not accurately reflect agency-specific procedures and precedents

Compliance Framework for Iowa Attorneys

#

Risk Management

#

Malpractice Considerations

#

AI-related malpractice risks include:

• Citation errors leading to sanctions and adverse outcomes
• Confidentiality breaches through AI platform data exposure
• Missed legal issues from over-reliance on AI analysis
• Fee disputes related to AI efficiency and billing

Insurance Considerations:

• Review malpractice policy for AI-related coverage or exclusions
• Document verification procedures for potential defense
• Consider disclosure to carrier for extensive AI use
• Maintain records demonstrating compliance efforts

Disciplinary Exposure

#

The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board may pursue discipline for:

• Competence violations from unverified AI reliance
• Confidentiality breaches through AI systems
• Candor violations from fabricated citations
• Supervision failures regarding staff AI use

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Resources

#

• Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct
• Iowa State Bar Association
• Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
• AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements