Massachusetts attorneys must integrate artificial intelligence within the framework of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and oversight by the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) and Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). While Massachusetts has not issued a comprehensive AI-specific ethics opinion, the existing professional responsibility rules provide robust guidance for ethical AI use in the Commonwealth.
Regulatory Framework#
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)#
The Supreme Judicial Court has inherent authority over attorney regulation in Massachusetts and promulgates the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.
Key Functions:
- Promulgation of ethics rules
- Final authority on attorney discipline
- Oversight of attorney regulation system
Board of Bar Overseers (BBO)#
The BBO is the agency responsible for attorney discipline, registration, and ethics guidance in Massachusetts.
Key Functions:
- Attorney registration and compliance
- Investigation of ethics complaints
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Advisory opinions and guidance
Contact Information:
- Address: 99 High Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02110
- Phone: (617) 728-8700
- Website: www.massbbo.org
Office of Bar Counsel#
The Office of Bar Counsel investigates complaints and prosecutes disciplinary matters before the Board of Bar Overseers.
Ethics Hotline: Massachusetts attorneys can contact the Office of Bar Counsel for informal ethics guidance.
Massachusetts Bar Association#
The MBA provides ethics resources, CLE programming, and practice guidance for Massachusetts attorneys.
Contact Information:
- Address: 20 West Street, Boston, MA 02111
- Phone: (617) 338-0500
- Website: www.massbar.org
AI Ethics Guidance Status#
Relevant Existing Guidance#
Massachusetts’ approach to AI ethics is informed by:
- Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct technology competence comments
- BBO Advisory Opinions on technology and confidentiality
- SJC Orders addressing court technology requirements
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 (persuasive authority)
- MBA CLE Programs on AI ethics
The BBO has addressed technology issues through advisory opinions on:
- Cloud computing and data security
- Electronic communications
- Third-party technology vendors
- Metadata handling
Core Ethical Obligations Under Massachusetts Rules#
Rule 1.1: Competence#
Massachusetts Rule 1.1 requires competent representation through legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation.
Comment [8] addresses technology competence:
“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology…”
AI Competence Requirements:
- Understand how generative AI systems operate
- Recognize AI hallucination risks (fabricated information)
- Know the limitations of AI legal research tools
- Maintain ability to evaluate and verify AI outputs
- Stay current on AI developments affecting practice
Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information#
Massachusetts Rule 1.6 requires attorneys to protect client confidential information, with significant implications for AI use.
Rule 1.6(a) provides:
“A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)…”
AI Confidentiality Obligations:
Before Using AI:
- Review platform Terms of Service and privacy policies
- Determine whether inputs are used for AI model training
- Evaluate data security measures and encryption
- Identify third-party data sharing practices
Protective Measures:
- Use enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy
- Anonymize client-identifying information before input
- Use hypotheticals rather than actual case facts
- Consider on-premise solutions for sensitive matters
- Obtain informed consent when appropriate
Comment [16] addresses technology security: The lawyer’s duty includes reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure when transmitting information using technology.
Rule 1.4: Communication#
Massachusetts attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed about their matters.
AI Communication Considerations:
- Discuss material AI use with clients when significant
- Respond honestly to client inquiries about AI
- Explain AI-related fee arrangements
- Obtain consent before inputting confidential data into AI
Best Practice: Address AI use in engagement letters to establish expectations and consent parameters.
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal#
Massachusetts Rule 3.3 absolutely prohibits false statements to courts and submission of fabricated evidence.
AI Candor Requirements:
- Never submit unverified AI-generated citations
- Verify all quoted language against original sources
- Confirm that cited cases exist and support stated propositions
- Correct any false submissions immediately upon discovery
Verification Protocol:
- Check every AI citation in Westlaw or Lexis
- Read the actual cited cases
- Verify quotations match original text exactly
- Confirm holdings and procedural posture
- Shepardize or KeyCite all authority
- Ensure cases actually support your arguments
Rule 5.1: Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers#
Partners and supervisors must ensure professional conduct compliance firm-wide.
AI Supervision Requirements:
- Establish written AI use policies
- Train all lawyers on AI verification requirements
- Implement quality control for AI-assisted work
- Monitor AI use for compliance
- Create accountability mechanisms
Rule 5.3: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance#
AI should be supervised similarly to nonlawyer assistants:
- AI requires human supervision at all times
- Attorneys cannot delegate professional judgment to AI
- All AI outputs must be reviewed by licensed attorneys
- Ultimate responsibility remains with supervising lawyers
Massachusetts Rules: AI Application Matrix#
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 | Competence | Understand AI; verify all outputs |
| Rule 1.3 | Diligence | Don’t allow AI to cause delays or harm |
| Rule 1.4 | Communication | Discuss material AI use with clients |
| Rule 1.5 | Fees | Bill reasonably for AI-assisted work |
| Rule 1.6 | Confidentiality | Protect client data when using AI |
| Rule 3.3 | Candor | Verify citations before court submission |
| Rule 5.1 | Partner Supervision | Establish and enforce AI policies |
| Rule 5.3 | Nonlawyer Supervision | Supervise AI like nonlawyer staff |
| Rule 8.4 | Misconduct | Don’t use AI for dishonesty |
Massachusetts Court Considerations#
Trial Court Departments#
Massachusetts trial courts (Superior Court, District Court, Probate and Family Court, etc.) may have specific AI requirements:
- Monitor local rules and standing orders
- Check individual judge requirements
- Be prepared to certify filing accuracy
- Consider voluntary AI disclosure when appropriate
Appeals Court and SJC#
Appellate practice in Massachusetts requires heightened attention to citation accuracy:
- Verification is critical for all appellate briefs
- AI-generated research presents particular risks
- Review SJC and Appeals Court rules carefully
Federal Courts in Massachusetts#
The District of Massachusetts and First Circuit may have specific AI requirements:
- Review current local rules before filing
- Check for AI-specific standing orders
- Comply with any certification requirements
- Monitor judge-specific practices
Billing for AI-Assisted Work in Massachusetts#
Massachusetts Rule 1.5 requires reasonable fees. For AI-assisted work:
Permitted Billing:
- Time spent developing effective AI prompts
- Time reviewing and verifying AI outputs
- Time editing and refining AI-generated content
- Actual time spent on AI-assisted tasks
Prohibited Billing:
- Billing for time not actually worked
- Charging for hours “saved” by AI efficiency
- Undisclosed AI cost pass-through charges
Best Practices:
- Address AI billing in engagement letters
- Disclose any AI-related costs to clients
- Consider value-based billing arrangements
- Document time accurately on AI-assisted tasks
Practical Compliance Steps for Massachusetts Attorneys#
Firm Policy Development:
- Create written AI use policies
- Define approved and prohibited AI tools
- Establish mandatory verification requirements
- Develop confidentiality protocols
- Implement training for all personnel
Before Using AI: 6. Review AI platform Terms of Service 7. Evaluate data security and privacy 8. Assess whether client consent is needed 9. Determine task appropriateness for AI
During AI Use: 10. Protect client confidential information 11. Use anonymization when possible 12. Maintain human judgment in decisions 13. Document AI use for records
After AI Generates Content: 14. Verify all citations in Westlaw/Lexis 15. Check quoted text against originals 16. Shepardize/KeyCite cited authority 17. Review for accuracy and completeness 18. Ensure content serves client interests
For Court Filings: 19. Personally verify every citation 20. Comply with any court AI requirements 21. Maintain verification documentation 22. Be prepared to explain verification process
Massachusetts-Specific Considerations#
MCLE Requirements#
Massachusetts continuing legal education requirements include ethics obligations. AI ethics programming can help attorneys:
- Maintain technology competence under Rule 1.1
- Understand emerging AI risks
- Develop compliant AI practices
Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC)#
Attorneys providing legal aid services should ensure AI use complies with both ethics rules and any MLAC guidelines regarding client confidentiality and service quality.
Law Student Practice#
Law students practicing under Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:03 should receive AI ethics training and operate under close supervision when using AI tools.
Malpractice Insurance Considerations#
Massachusetts attorneys should review professional liability coverage:
Key Questions:
- Does your policy cover AI-related claims?
- Are there AI-specific exclusions?
- Must you disclose AI use to your carrier?
- Is coverage adequate for AI risks?
Risk Management:
- Implement thorough verification protocols
- Document all AI use and review processes
- Train staff on AI limitations
- Maintain compliance records
Frequently Asked Questions#
Has Massachusetts issued formal AI ethics guidance?
Must I disclose AI use to Massachusetts courts?
Can I use AI for legal research in Massachusetts?
What are Massachusetts' confidentiality requirements for AI use?
How should Massachusetts attorneys bill for AI work?
Resources#
Massachusetts Resources#
- Board of Bar Overseers
- Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct
- Supreme Judicial Court
- Massachusetts Bar Association
National Resources#
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - Generative AI ethics guidance
- AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases nationwide
- State-by-State AI Ethics Guide - Compare guidance across jurisdictions
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Massachusetts?
While Massachusetts hasn't issued AI-specific guidance, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct establish clear standards for competent, ethical AI use. Understanding BBO expectations is essential for attorneys integrating AI into practice.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney