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

Ohio AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Table of Contents

Ohio attorneys must navigate artificial intelligence integration within the framework of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and guidance from the Supreme Court of Ohio and its Board of Professional Conduct. The Board has actively addressed technology issues through advisory opinions, providing a foundation for ethical AI use in legal practice throughout the Buckeye State.


Regulatory Framework
#

Supreme Court of Ohio
#

The Supreme Court has ultimate authority over attorney regulation in Ohio, including promulgation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and attorney discipline.

Key Functions:

  • Promulgation of ethics rules
  • Final authority on attorney discipline
  • Oversight of legal profession regulation

Website: www.supremecourt.ohio.gov

Board of Professional Conduct
#

The Board of Professional Conduct issues advisory opinions interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, providing essential guidance on ethical obligations.

Key Functions:

  • Advisory opinions on ethics questions
  • Interpretation of professional conduct rules
  • Guidance on emerging ethical issues
  • Published opinions database

Advisory Opinion Request: Attorneys can request informal or formal advisory opinions from the Board.

Website: Supreme Court of Ohio - Board of Professional Conduct

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
#

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigates complaints and prosecutes disciplinary matters.

Key Functions:

  • Complaint investigation
  • Disciplinary prosecution
  • Public discipline records

Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA)
#

While not a regulatory body, the OSBA provides ethics resources, CLE programming, and practice guidance.

Contact Information:

  • Address: 1700 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, OH 43204
  • Phone: (614) 487-2050 or (800) 282-6556
  • Website: www.ohiobar.org

AI Ethics Guidance Status
#

Current Status
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has not issued a comprehensive AI-specific advisory opinion. However, existing opinions on technology use and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct provide a framework for ethical AI integration. The Board continues to monitor AI developments affecting legal practice.

Relevant Board Advisory Opinions
#

Ohio’s approach to AI ethics is informed by existing advisory opinions addressing technology:

Technology-Related Opinions:

  • Cloud computing and data storage obligations
  • Electronic communications and confidentiality
  • Third-party service providers
  • Lawyer technology competence requirements

These opinions establish principles directly applicable to AI use:

  • Attorneys must understand technology they use
  • Client confidentiality extends to electronic systems
  • Due diligence required before using third-party technology
  • Supervision obligations apply to technology-assisted work

State Bar Guidance
#

The OSBA has addressed AI through:

  • CLE programming on AI ethics and compliance
  • Practice management resources
  • Ethics hotline guidance
  • Publications addressing AI risks

Core Ethical Obligations Under Ohio Rules
#

Rule 1.1: Competence
#

Ohio Rule 1.1 requires competent representation through legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation.

Comment [8] addresses technology:

“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 generative AI capabilities and limitations
  • Recognize hallucination risks (fabricated information)
  • Know when AI is appropriate and when it isn’t
  • Maintain ability to verify and evaluate AI outputs
  • Stay current on AI developments in legal practice
Verification Is Non-Negotiable
Ohio attorneys must independently verify all AI-generated legal content. Submitting fabricated citations violates competence under Rule 1.1 and candor obligations under Rule 3.3.

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information
#

Ohio Rule 1.6 establishes strict confidentiality obligations directly impacting AI use.

Rule 1.6(a) provides:

“A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by division (b) or required by division (c) of this rule.”

AI Confidentiality Requirements:

Before Using AI:

  • Review platform Terms of Service and privacy policies
  • Determine if inputs are used for AI model training
  • Evaluate data security measures and encryption
  • Identify any third-party data sharing

Protective Measures:

  • Use enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy
  • Anonymize client-identifying information
  • Use hypotheticals rather than actual facts
  • Consider on-premise solutions for sensitive matters
  • Obtain informed consent when appropriate

Comment [18] addresses technology transmission: Attorneys must act competently when transmitting information using technology, including taking reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure.

Rule 1.4: Communication
#

Ohio attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments.

AI Communication Considerations:

  • Discuss material AI use with clients
  • Respond honestly to client AI inquiries
  • Explain AI-related fee arrangements
  • Obtain consent before AI processes confidential data

Best Practice: Address AI use in engagement letters to establish expectations and obtain appropriate consent.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
#

Ohio Rule 3.3 prohibits false statements and fabricated evidence before tribunals.

AI Candor Requirements:

  • Never submit unverified AI-generated citations
  • Verify all quoted language against original sources
  • Confirm cited cases exist and support your propositions
  • Correct any false submissions immediately

Verification Protocol:

  1. Check every AI citation in Westlaw or Lexis
  2. Read the actual cases cited
  3. Verify quotations match original text
  4. Confirm holdings and procedural history
  5. Shepardize or KeyCite all authority
  6. Ensure cases support your arguments

Rule 5.1: Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers
#

Partners and supervisors must ensure firm-wide professional conduct compliance.

AI Supervision Requirements:

  • Establish comprehensive AI use policies
  • Train all lawyers on AI verification requirements
  • Implement quality control procedures
  • Monitor AI use for compliance
  • Create accountability structures

Rule 5.3: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
#

AI should be supervised similarly to nonlawyer assistants:

  • AI requires human supervision
  • Attorneys cannot delegate professional judgment to AI
  • All AI outputs require review by licensed attorneys
  • Ultimate responsibility remains with supervising lawyers

Ohio Rules: AI Application Matrix
#

RuleObligationAI Application
Rule 1.1CompetenceUnderstand AI; verify all outputs
Rule 1.3DiligenceDon’t allow AI to cause delays or harm
Rule 1.4CommunicationDiscuss material AI use with clients
Rule 1.5FeesBill reasonably for AI-assisted work
Rule 1.6ConfidentialityProtect client data when using AI
Rule 3.3CandorVerify citations before court submission
Rule 5.1Managerial SupervisionEstablish and enforce AI policies
Rule 5.3Nonlawyer SupervisionSupervise AI like nonlawyer staff
Rule 8.4MisconductDon’t use AI for dishonesty

Ohio Court Considerations
#

State Courts
#

Ohio state courts (Common Pleas, Courts of Appeals, Supreme Court) may have AI-related requirements:

  • Monitor local rules and standing orders
  • Check individual judge requirements
  • Be prepared to certify filing accuracy
  • Consider voluntary AI disclosure when appropriate

Supreme Court of Ohio
#

The Supreme Court sets attorney regulation policy and may address AI use through:

  • Rule amendments
  • Administrative guidance
  • Board of Professional Conduct opinions

Federal Courts in Ohio
#

The Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of Ohio, and Sixth Circuit may have specific AI requirements:

  • Review current local rules before filing
  • Check for AI-specific standing orders
  • Comply with any certification requirements
  • Monitor individual judge practices

Billing for AI-Assisted Work in Ohio
#

Ohio Rule 1.5 requires reasonable fees. For AI-assisted work:

Permitted Billing:

  • Time spent crafting effective AI prompts
  • Time reviewing and verifying AI outputs
  • Time editing AI-generated content
  • Actual time spent on AI-assisted tasks

Prohibited Billing:

  • Billing for time not actually worked
  • Charging for hours “saved” by AI
  • Undisclosed AI cost pass-through

Best Practices:

  • Discuss AI billing in engagement letters
  • Disclose any AI-related costs
  • Consider value-based billing arrangements
  • Document time accurately

Practical Compliance Steps for Ohio Attorneys
#

Ohio AI Compliance Checklist

Policy Development:

  1. Create written AI use policies
  2. Define approved and prohibited AI tools
  3. Establish mandatory verification requirements
  4. Develop confidentiality protocols
  5. 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


Ohio-Specific Considerations
#

CLE Requirements
#

Ohio CLE requirements include ethics obligations. AI ethics programming helps attorneys:

  • Maintain technology competence under Rule 1.1
  • Understand emerging AI risks
  • Develop compliant practices

Legal Aid Providers#

Attorneys providing legal aid services should ensure AI use complies with ethics rules and any organizational guidelines regarding client confidentiality and service quality.

Mentorship Programs
#

New Ohio attorneys in mentorship programs should receive AI ethics training from their mentors, including verification protocols and confidentiality requirements.

Certified Legal Specialist Program#

Ohio Certified Legal Specialists should maintain AI competence in their specialty areas and ensure AI use meets the heightened expertise standards.


Malpractice Insurance Considerations
#

Ohio 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 Ohio issued formal AI ethics guidance?

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has not issued a comprehensive AI-specific advisory opinion. However, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), and 3.3 (Candor), provide clear standards. Existing Board opinions on technology use also inform AI compliance.

Must I disclose AI use to Ohio courts?

Ohio has no statewide AI disclosure mandate. However, check local court rules, standing orders, and individual judge requirements. Federal courts in Ohio may have specific disclosure or certification requirements. Always review current rules before filing.

Can I use AI for legal research in Ohio?

Yes, but independent verification is mandatory. Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, which means verifying all AI-generated research. Check citations in Westlaw or Lexis, verify quotations, and Shepardize cases. Never submit unverified AI output to any tribunal.

What are Ohio's confidentiality requirements for AI use?

Rule 1.6 requires protecting client confidential information. Before using AI, review the platform’s privacy policy and data handling practices. Avoid inputting client-identifying information into consumer AI tools. Consider enterprise solutions with enhanced privacy, or use anonymization techniques.

How should Ohio attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?

Under Rule 1.5, fees must be reasonable. Bill only for time actually spent, including prompting, reviewing, verifying, and editing. Don’t bill for time “saved” by AI efficiency. Discuss AI billing with clients upfront and address it clearly in engagement letters.

Resources
#

Ohio Resources
#

National Resources
#


Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Ohio?

The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Board of Professional Conduct advisory opinions provide a framework for ethical AI use. Understanding these requirements is essential for Ohio attorneys integrating AI into legal practice.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Alabama AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Alabama attorneys are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into their legal practices, from contract review to legal research. While the Alabama State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct establish clear ethical boundaries that govern all technology use, including generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.

Arizona AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

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

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

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

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.

District of Columbia AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Attorneys practicing in the District of Columbia face unique ethical considerations when integrating artificial intelligence into their practices. The DC Rules of Professional Conduct, which contain notable variations from the ABA Model Rules, govern AI use by DC Bar members. Given Washington, D.C.’s concentration of federal government lawyers, regulatory practitioners, and major law firms, AI ethics compliance carries particular significance in the District.