↓ Skip to main content
AI Standard of Care
  1. AI Legal Ethics by State/
  2. State AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys/

Louisiana AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Louisiana Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics LSBA State Bar
Table of Contents

Louisiana operates under its own unique legal tradition, the civil law system, which distinguishes it from the common law jurisdictions of other states. As Louisiana attorneys increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into their practices, they must navigate AI ethics within this distinctive legal framework while adhering to the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

Current AI Guidance Status
#

Louisiana State Bar Association
#

As of 2025, the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) has not issued formal guidance specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI or large language models like ChatGPT. However, Louisiana attorneys remain bound by existing Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to all technology use in legal practice.

Current Status: No AI-specific guidance published Governing Authority: Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Oversight Body: Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

The LSBA’s Ethics Advisory Service continues to provide informal guidance to attorneys with questions about technology use, including AI applications. Attorneys with specific questions may contact the Ethics Advisory Service for non-binding opinions.

Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct
#

Louisiana adopted Rules of Professional Conduct closely modeled on the ABA Model Rules. These rules establish the ethical framework within which Louisiana attorneys must operate when using AI tools.

Rule 1.1 - Competence
#

Louisiana Rule 1.1 requires that attorneys provide competent representation, which includes:

Competence Requirement
“Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

AI Implications:

  • Attorneys must understand AI tools’ capabilities and limitations before use
  • Competent AI use requires knowing that generative AI can produce “hallucinations”, fabricated citations, cases, and legal propositions
  • Lawyers cannot blindly rely on AI outputs without verification
  • Understanding AI-specific risks is part of the technological competence expected of modern attorneys

Comment [8] to Rule 1.1, following the 2012 ABA amendments, clarifies that lawyers must keep abreast of “changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

Rule 1.3 - Diligence
#

Louisiana attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness. AI use must enhance, not compromise, client service:

  • AI should not cause delays through over-reliance or unfamiliarity
  • Attorneys must allocate adequate time for verification of AI outputs
  • Using AI does not excuse missed deadlines or neglected matters

Rule 1.4 - Communication
#

The duty to communicate with clients extends to material aspects of the representation, potentially including AI use:

When Disclosure May Be Required:

  • Client inquires about methods used in their representation
  • AI use materially affects the strategy or cost of representation
  • Confidential information will be inputted into AI systems
  • Fee arrangements are affected by AI efficiency gains

Communication Best Practices:

  • Include AI use policies in engagement letters
  • Discuss AI use during initial client consultations
  • Update clients when AI use changes during representation

Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality
#

Louisiana Rule 1.6 prohibits revealing client confidential information without informed consent. This creates significant obligations when using AI:

Confidentiality Alert
Inputting client information into AI systems may constitute a “disclosure” under Rule 1.6 if that information is stored, processed, or potentially accessed by third parties.

Before Using AI with Client Data:

  1. Review the AI platform’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
  2. Determine whether inputs are used to train the AI model
  3. Verify data security measures and encryption protocols
  4. Assess third-party access to inputted information
  5. Consider whether informed consent is required

Recommended Safeguards:

  • Use enterprise AI platforms with enhanced privacy protections
  • Anonymize or redact identifying information before input
  • Avoid inputting highly sensitive matters (criminal defense, family law)
  • Maintain logs of what information was inputted and where

Rule 1.5 - Fees
#

Louisiana attorneys must charge reasonable fees. AI use affects fee calculations:

Billing Considerations:

  • Attorneys should not charge for time saved by AI efficiency
  • If a task takes 30 minutes with AI that would have taken 3 hours manually, bill for actual time spent
  • Time spent crafting prompts, reviewing, and editing AI outputs is billable
  • Disclose AI-related costs or subscription fees passed to clients

Fee Agreement Best Practices:

  • Address AI use in fee agreements
  • Explain how AI affects hourly billing calculations
  • Consider value-based billing for AI-enhanced services
  • Be transparent about efficiency gains

Rule 3.3 - Candor Toward the Tribunal
#

This rule is particularly critical for AI use. Louisiana attorneys must not:

  • Submit false statements of fact or law to a tribunal
  • Cite non-existent cases or fabricated legal authority
  • Rely on AI-generated citations without independent verification

Verification Requirements:

  • Every case citation must be verified in Westlaw or Lexis
  • All quoted language must be checked against original sources
  • Legal propositions must be confirmed through traditional research
  • Shepardize or KeyCite all authorities before submission

Rule 5.1 and 5.3 - Supervision
#

Partners and supervising attorneys bear responsibility for ensuring AI compliance:

Supervisory Duties:

  • Establish firm-wide AI use policies
  • Train lawyers and staff on proper AI use
  • Create verification protocols and checklists
  • Monitor compliance with ethical obligations
  • Make reasonable efforts to ensure others’ conduct conforms to the Rules

Louisiana’s Civil Law Tradition and AI
#

Louisiana’s unique civil law heritage creates special considerations for AI use:

Civilian Code Research
#

Generative AI trained primarily on common law sources may:

  • Misunderstand Louisiana’s code-based approach
  • Confuse Louisiana Civil Code provisions with common law principles
  • Fail to recognize distinctions between Louisiana and other states’ laws
  • Generate citations to inapplicable common law precedents

Best Practices for Louisiana Practitioners:

  • Verify AI outputs against Louisiana-specific sources
  • Cross-reference Louisiana Civil Code and statutes
  • Use Louisiana-focused legal databases when possible
  • Be especially cautious with property, succession, and family law matters

Louisiana Supreme Court
#

The Louisiana Supreme Court has not issued AI-specific orders or rules as of 2025. However, courts retain inherent authority to sanction attorneys for:

  • Filing documents with fabricated citations
  • Submitting AI-generated content without verification
  • Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

National Guidance Applicable to Louisiana
#

While Louisiana has not issued state-specific AI guidance, Louisiana attorneys should consult:

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)
#

The ABA’s comprehensive guidance on generative AI applies the Model Rules to AI use. Key holdings relevant to Louisiana:

  • Attorneys must understand AI limitations, including hallucinations
  • Client confidential information requires protection in AI systems
  • Supervision obligations extend to AI use by lawyers and staff
  • Verification of AI outputs is required before reliance

Federal Court Requirements
#

Louisiana attorneys practicing in federal courts must comply with local rules:

Eastern District of Louisiana: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Middle District of Louisiana: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Western District of Louisiana: No AI-specific standing order as of 2025 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: No AI-specific certification requirement as of 2025

Attorneys should monitor local rules for updates, as federal courts nationwide are rapidly adopting AI disclosure requirements.

Risk Considerations for Louisiana Attorneys
#

Malpractice Exposure
#

AI-related malpractice risks in Louisiana include:

  • Citation errors: Submitting fabricated cases could constitute negligence
  • Confidentiality breaches: Exposing client data through AI platforms
  • Missed issues: Over-relying on AI and failing to identify legal problems
  • Billing disputes: Fee disagreements related to AI efficiency

Insurance Considerations:

  • Review malpractice policy for AI-related exclusions
  • Document verification procedures for defense purposes
  • Consider disclosure to carrier if using AI extensively

Disciplinary Exposure
#

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board may pursue discipline for:

  • Violations of competence standards through unverified AI reliance
  • Confidentiality breaches involving AI systems
  • Candor violations from fabricated citations
  • Failure to supervise AI use by subordinates

Practical Compliance Framework
#

Louisiana AI Compliance Checklist

Policy Development:

  1. Create written AI use policies for your firm
  2. Define approved AI platforms and prohibited uses
  3. Establish verification protocols for all AI outputs
  4. Require documentation of AI use in client files

Before Using AI: 5. Assess confidentiality implications for the specific matter 6. Determine if client consent is required or advisable 7. Review AI platform privacy and security features 8. Consider Louisiana-specific legal issues requiring extra care

During AI Use: 9. Avoid inputting identifying client information when possible 10. Maintain human judgment in all substantive decisions 11. Document prompts used and outputs received 12. Flag all AI-generated content for verification

Verification Protocol: 13. Verify every citation in Westlaw or Lexis 14. Check quoted language against original sources 15. Confirm legal propositions through independent research 16. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 17. Review for logical consistency and accuracy

Billing: 18. Bill only for actual time spent 19. Track AI-related efficiencies for fee discussions 20. Be transparent with clients about AI use and costs

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Has Louisiana issued AI ethics guidance for attorneys?

No. As of 2025, the Louisiana State Bar Association has not published formal guidance specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI. Louisiana attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use, particularly rules on competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 provides persuasive guidance that Louisiana attorneys should consider.

Can Louisiana attorneys use ChatGPT for legal research?

Yes, but with significant precautions. Louisiana attorneys may use AI tools for legal research assistance, but must independently verify all outputs before reliance. This is especially important given Louisiana’s civil law system:AI trained on common law may not accurately address Louisiana-specific legal issues. Every citation must be confirmed, every quote verified, and every legal proposition checked through traditional research methods.

Do Louisiana courts require AI disclosure?

Louisiana state courts have not adopted AI disclosure requirements as of 2025. However, the Louisiana federal district courts may adopt local rules, and attorneys should monitor for changes. Regardless of disclosure requirements, attorneys remain responsible for the accuracy of all filed documents, whether AI-assisted or not.

What are the confidentiality concerns with AI in Louisiana?

Louisiana Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosing client confidential information without consent. When using AI, attorneys must assess whether inputting client information constitutes a disclosure, review AI platform privacy policies, verify data security measures, and consider whether informed consent is necessary. Using enterprise platforms with enhanced privacy, anonymizing data, and avoiding sensitive inputs are recommended safeguards.

How should Louisiana attorneys handle billing for AI-assisted work?

Louisiana attorneys should bill for actual time spent, not for time that would have been spent without AI. If AI reduces a 3-hour task to 30 minutes, bill 30 minutes. Time spent on prompts, review, and editing is billable. Consider addressing AI use in fee agreements and discussing efficiency gains with clients. Transparency about AI’s role in fee calculations helps avoid disputes.

Resources
#

Questions About AI Ethics in Louisiana?

While Louisiana has not yet issued AI-specific guidance, existing Rules of Professional Conduct create clear obligations for attorneys using AI tools. Louisiana's unique civil law tradition adds additional considerations for proper AI integration.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Arizona AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Arizona Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Regulatory Sandbox
Arizona has positioned itself as a national leader in legal innovation, becoming the first state to eliminate the prohibition on nonlawyer ownership of law firms and establishing a regulatory sandbox for legal technology companies. This forward-thinking approach extends to AI regulation, where Arizona balances innovation with robust client protections through its adaptation of existing ethics rules to emerging technologies.

Colorado AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·10 mins
Legal Ethics Colorado Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Colorado Supreme Court
Colorado has emerged as a thoughtful leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association providing guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. The state’s approach emphasizes practical compliance while maintaining flexibility for attorneys to leverage AI’s benefits responsibly.

Connecticut AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Connecticut Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics CBA State Bar
Connecticut has taken a measured approach to artificial intelligence regulation in legal practice, focusing on applying existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI technologies while the state bar monitors developments. The Connecticut Bar Association and state courts have emphasized that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for any AI-generated work product, regardless of the technology’s sophistication.

Delaware AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··9 mins
Legal Ethics Delaware Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Court of Chancery Corporate Law State Bar
Delaware may be geographically small, but its outsized influence on American corporate law makes it a critical jurisdiction for AI ethics guidance. Home to the renowned Court of Chancery and the incorporation domicile for over 65% of Fortune 500 companies, Delaware attorneys practicing corporate, business, and chancery law must apply the highest standards when using artificial intelligence tools. The Delaware State Bar Association and the state’s courts have emphasized that attorneys remain fully responsible for AI-generated work product.

Illinois AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Illinois Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics ISBA ARDC State Bar
Illinois has emerged as a leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism (2Civility) and the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) providing extensive guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. While Illinois has not issued formal AI-specific ethics opinions, the state’s robust professional responsibility framework, including the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and ARDC enforcement, establishes clear boundaries for responsible AI use.

New Mexico AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··9 mins
Legal Ethics New Mexico Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Tribal Law
New Mexico presents a unique legal landscape for AI ethics in legal practice. As a state with significant Native American populations and tribal court systems, New Mexico attorneys must navigate not only state ethics rules but also the intersection of AI use with tribal law practice. While the New Mexico State Bar has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, the existing Rules of Professional Conduct provide a robust framework for ethical AI integration.