Kansas AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Kansas attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practices must navigate their ethical obligations under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). While the Kansas Bar Association has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, existing ethical rules establish clear requirements for competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision that apply to all technology use, including generative AI tools.

Current AI Guidance Status

#

Kansas Bar Association

#

As of 2025, the Kansas Bar Association (KBA) has not published formal guidance or ethics opinions specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar large language models. The KBA’s Ethics Advisory Committee issues opinions interpreting the KRPC, but no AI-specific advisory opinion has been published.

Current Status: No AI-specific formal guidance Governing Rules: Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (Supreme Court Rule 226) Regulatory Authority: Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator

Kansas attorneys with AI-related ethics questions may contact the KBA Ethics Hotline for informal guidance on applying existing rules to AI use scenarios.

Kansas Supreme Court

#

The Kansas Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney regulation. As of 2025, the Court has not issued orders or rule amendments specifically addressing AI in legal practice. The existing KRPC apply to all aspects of legal practice, including the use of AI technology.

Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and AI

#

The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct follow the ABA Model Rules and create the ethical framework governing attorney use of AI.

KRPC 1.1 - Competence

#

Kansas Rule 1.1 establishes the foundational competence standard:

Technological Competence Duty:

The Comment to KRPC 1.1 requires lawyers to keep abreast of changes in law practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. This technology competence duty applies directly to AI tools.

AI Competence Requirements:

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

Examples of Incompetent AI Use:

• Filing AI-generated court documents without accuracy review
• Relying on AI case citations without independent verification
• Using AI for complex analysis beyond its reliable capabilities
• Failing to understand that all AI outputs require human verification

KRPC 1.3 - Diligence

#

Kansas attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness:

• AI use should enhance rather than impede diligent representation
• Unfamiliarity with AI causing delays may violate diligence duties
• Verification time must be built into AI-assisted workflows
• AI efficiency gains should improve client service quality

KRPC 1.4 - Communication

#

Client communication duties may extend to AI use when material:

Disclosure May Be Required When:

• Client specifically inquires about methods or technology used
• AI use materially affects representation strategy or costs
• Confidential information will be inputted into AI systems
• AI use significantly affects fee arrangements

Communication Best Practices:

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

KRPC 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information

#

Kansas confidentiality rule creates critical AI obligations:

AI Confidentiality Concerns:

Inputting client information into AI systems creates potential confidentiality issues:

1. Data Retention: AI platforms may store inputted information
2. Model Training: Some AI systems use inputs to improve their models
3. Third-Party Access: AI providers and subcontractors may access data
4. Security Vulnerabilities: AI platforms face cybersecurity risks
5. Cross-User Exposure: AI may incorporate inputs into responses to other users

Protective Measures for Kansas Attorneys:

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

KRPC 1.5 - Fees

#

Kansas attorneys must charge reasonable fees:

Fee Principles:

• Fees must be reasonable under the circumstances
• Attorneys should not bill for time saved through AI efficiency
• Actual time spent on AI-assisted tasks is billable
• Time for prompting, reviewing, verifying, and editing is compensable

Practical Application: If AI reduces a 6-hour research task to 90 minutes of actual work (including prompting, review, and verification), bill for 90 minutes, not the 6 hours that would have been required without AI.

Fee Agreement Recommendations:

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

KRPC 3.3 - Candor Toward the Tribunal

#

This rule is essential for AI compliance in 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 constitute violations regardless of intent
• All AI-generated content must be verified before filing

Verification Protocol:

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

KRPC 5.1 - Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers

#

Senior attorneys have supervisory duties:

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

KRPC 5.3 - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance

#

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

Kansas Court Considerations

#

Kansas Supreme Court

#

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

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

Kansas Court of Appeals

#

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

Kansas District Courts

#

Individual Kansas district courts have not issued AI-specific standing orders as of 2025. Attorneys should monitor for local developments and comply with any judicial requirements that may be imposed.

Federal Courts in Kansas

#

Kansas attorneys practicing in federal court should monitor local rules:

District of Kansas: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals: No AI-specific certification requirement as of 2025

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

Special Considerations for Kansas Practice

#

Agricultural Law

#

Kansas’s significant agricultural sector creates particular AI considerations:

• AI may not accurately address Kansas-specific agricultural law issues
• Water rights (particularly western Kansas groundwater) require specialized knowledge
• Grain and commodity transactions involve specialized legal frameworks
• USDA program regulations may not be current in AI training data
• Kansas Corporation Commission regulations for agriculture-related utilities

Best Practices:

• Exercise extra caution using AI for agricultural matters
• Verify AI outputs against Kansas-specific sources
• Consult Kansas statutes and Department of Agriculture regulations directly
• Treat AI as a preliminary research tool only

Water Law

#

Kansas water law warrants particular care:

• Prior appropriation system for surface and groundwater
• Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources oversight
• Groundwater Management Districts with local authority
• Interstate compacts (Kansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River, Republican River)
• AI likely lacks specialized knowledge of Kansas water law complexities

Oil and Gas Law

#

Kansas oil and gas practice has unique features:

• Kansas Corporation Commission regulatory oversight
• Spacing and pooling order requirements
• Kansas-specific lease interpretation issues
• Environmental compliance under Kansas Department of Health and Environment
• AI may not accurately reflect Kansas oil and gas law nuances

Workers’ Compensation

#

Kansas workers’ compensation has distinct procedures:

• Administrative Law Judge proceedings
• Appeals Board review process
• Kansas-specific statutory provisions and case law
• Fee schedules and procedural requirements
• AI may not accurately reflect current Kansas workers’ compensation law

Rural and Small Firm Practice

#

Kansas’s rural legal community may find AI beneficial but must exercise caution:

• AI can help address resource limitations in smaller communities
• Distance from law libraries makes online verification essential
• Solo and small firm practitioners should establish personal verification protocols
• AI should supplement, not replace, professional judgment

Compliance Framework for Kansas Attorneys

#

Risk Management

#

Malpractice Considerations

#

AI-related malpractice risks for Kansas attorneys 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 practices

Insurance Considerations:

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

Disciplinary Exposure

#

The Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator may pursue discipline for:

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

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Resources

#

• Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (Supreme Court Rule 226)
• Kansas Bar Association
• Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
• AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements