Nebraska AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Nebraska attorneys incorporating artificial intelligence into their practices must understand their ethical obligations under the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. While Nebraska has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the established ethical framework provides clear direction for competent, confidential, and candid AI use in legal practice.

Current AI Guidance Status

#

Nebraska State Bar Association

#

As of 2025, the Nebraska State Bar Association (NSBA) has not published formal ethics opinions specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot. The NSBA’s Ethics Advisory Committee provides opinions interpreting the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, but no AI-specific opinion has been issued.

Current Status: No AI-specific formal guidance Governing Rules: Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct Regulatory Authority: Nebraska Supreme Court Counsel for Discipline

Nebraska attorneys with specific AI ethics questions may request informal guidance from the NSBA Ethics Advisory Committee to help apply existing rules to AI use scenarios.

Nebraska Supreme Court

#

The Nebraska 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. Existing professional conduct rules apply to all aspects of practice, including technology use.

Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and AI

#

Nebraska’s Rules of Professional Conduct follow the ABA Model Rules and create the framework governing attorney AI use.

§ 3-501.1 - Competence

#

Nebraska’s competence rule is foundational:

Technological Competence Duty:

The Comment to § 3-501.1 requires attorneys to keep abreast of changes in law and 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
• Knowing that generative AI produces “hallucinations”, fabricated information presented as factual
• Recognizing AI may create fake citations, invented quotes, and false legal rules
• Developing effective prompting skills and critical evaluation abilities
• Staying current on evolving AI technology and associated risks

Examples of Incompetent AI Use:

• Filing AI-generated briefs without accuracy review
• Relying on AI case citations without independent verification
• Using AI for analysis beyond its reliable capabilities
• Failing to understand AI requires human oversight and verification

§ 3-501.3 - Diligence

#

Nebraska attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness:

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

§ 3-501.4 - Communication

#

Client communication duties extend to material AI use:

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

§ 3-501.6 - Confidentiality of Information

#

Nebraska’s confidentiality rule creates critical AI obligations:

AI Confidentiality Risks:

Inputting client information into AI systems creates potential confidentiality concerns:

1. Data Retention: AI platforms may store inputted information indefinitely
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 Nebraska 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

§ 3-501.5 - Fees

#

Nebraska attorneys must charge reasonable fees:

Fee Principles:

• Fees must be reasonable considering all 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 5-hour research task to 75 minutes of actual work (including prompting, review, and verification), bill for the 75 minutes expended, not the 5 hours previously required.

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

§ 3-503.3 - 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
• Fabricated case citations violate candor obligations
• AI “hallucinations” submitted to courts constitute violations
• All AI-generated content must be verified before submission

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 internal logical consistency and accuracy

§ 3-505.1 - Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers

#

Senior attorneys have supervisory duties:

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

§ 3-505.3 - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

#

AI may be treated similarly 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

Nebraska Court Considerations

#

Nebraska Supreme Court

#

The Nebraska 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

Nebraska Court of Appeals

#

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

Nebraska District and County Courts

#

Individual Nebraska courts have not issued AI-specific standing orders as of 2025. Attorneys should monitor for local developments and comply with any specific judicial requirements.

Federal Courts in Nebraska

#

Nebraska attorneys practicing in federal court should monitor:

District of Nebraska: 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. Nebraska federal practitioners should anticipate similar developments.

Special Considerations for Nebraska Practice

#

Agricultural Law

#

Nebraska’s agricultural economy creates particular AI considerations:

• AI may not accurately address Nebraska-specific agricultural law
• Water rights, irrigation districts, and natural resources law require specialized knowledge
• USDA program regulations may not be current in AI training data
• Farm credit and agricultural lending involve specialized legal frameworks

Best Practices:

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

Water Law

#

Nebraska’s unique water law system warrants particular care:

• Groundwater management through Natural Resources Districts
• Surface water rights under the Department of Natural Resources
• Interstate compacts (Republican River, Platte River) involve complex multi-jurisdictional issues
• AI likely lacks specialized knowledge of Nebraska water law

Workers’ Compensation

#

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court proceedings require specialized knowledge:

• Specific procedural rules and deadlines
• Nebraska-specific case law on compensability
• Medical fee schedules and vocational rehabilitation requirements
• AI may not accurately reflect current Nebraska workers’ compensation law

Rural and Small Firm Practice

#

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

• AI can help address resource limitations
• 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 Nebraska Attorneys

#

Risk Management

#

Malpractice Considerations

#

AI-related malpractice risks for Nebraska 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

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 Nebraska Counsel for Discipline 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

#

• Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct
• Nebraska State Bar Association
• Nebraska Supreme Court Counsel for Discipline
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
• AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements