Oregon AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Oregon has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance for attorneys, but the Oregon State Bar (OSB) has signaled awareness of AI’s impact on legal practice. Oregon attorneys must navigate AI use through the lens of existing Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), which impose clear duties around competence, confidentiality, and candor that directly govern how lawyers may ethically integrate artificial intelligence into their practices.

Current Regulatory Status

#

Oregon State Bar Position

#

As of 2025, the Oregon State Bar has not released formal ethics opinions or practice guidelines specifically addressing generative AI or large language models like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. However, the Bar’s existing ethics framework provides substantial guidance:

Key Resources:

• Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct
• OSB Legal Ethics Opinions
• OSB Professional Liability Fund

The Oregon State Bar’s Professional Liability Fund (PLF) has published risk management guidance recognizing AI as a developing area requiring careful attention from practitioners.

Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct Applied to AI

#

Competence (ORPC 1.1)

#

Oregon Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation, including “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

AI Competence Requirements:

• Understand AI tools’ capabilities and limitations before use
• Recognize that AI systems can produce plausible-sounding but fabricated content
• Verify all AI-generated legal research independently
• Stay current on technological developments affecting practice

Confidentiality (ORPC 1.6)

#

Oregon’s confidentiality rule protects information “relating to the representation of a client” from disclosure without informed consent.

AI Confidentiality Obligations:

• Evaluate AI platform data handling practices before inputting client information
• Review Terms of Service for data retention, sharing, and training policies
• Consider whether cloud-based AI constitutes disclosure to third parties
• Implement technical safeguards for client data protection

Key Considerations:

• Does the AI provider use inputs to train models?
• Is data encrypted in transit and at rest?
• Where are servers located (jurisdiction matters)?
• What happens to data after sessions end?

Communication (ORPC 1.4)

#

Oregon Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

AI Disclosure Considerations:

• Materiality determines disclosure necessity
• Significant AI use affecting representation strategy may require disclosure
• Fee implications of AI use should be communicated
• Client preferences regarding AI may be relevant

Candor to the Tribunal (ORPC 3.3)

#

Oregon Rule 3.3 prohibits lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal or offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false.

AI Verification Imperative:

• All AI-generated citations must be independently verified
• Quoted language must be checked against original sources
• Legal propositions must be confirmed through authoritative research
• Fabricated cases (hallucinations) violate candor obligations

Supervision Duties (ORPC 5.1, 5.3)

#

Oregon Rules 5.1 and 5.3 impose supervisory responsibilities on partners and supervising lawyers regarding both lawyers and nonlawyer assistants.

AI Supervision Framework:

• Establish firm-wide AI use policies
• Train all personnel on ethical AI use
• Implement verification protocols before filing
• Monitor compliance with established procedures

Oregon Court Requirements

#

Oregon Judicial Department

#

Oregon courts have not yet implemented mandatory AI disclosure requirements comparable to some federal districts. However, attorneys practicing in Oregon should:

Monitor Developments:

• Track Oregon Judicial Department announcements
• Review local court rules for AI-related amendments
• Check individual judge standing orders for AI provisions
• Stay informed on Ninth Circuit guidance affecting Oregon practice

Best Practices for Oregon Courts:

• Verify all citations regardless of disclosure requirements
• Maintain documentation of verification processes
• Be prepared to certify human review of AI-assisted filings
• Disclose AI use when directly relevant to proceedings

Federal Courts in Oregon

#

District of Oregon

#

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon follows Ninth Circuit guidance. While not yet requiring mandatory AI disclosure, attorneys should:

• Monitor Local Rule amendments
• Review standing orders from assigned judges
• Verify all citations in Westlaw, Lexis, or official reporters
• Be prepared to attest to citation verification

Ninth Circuit Considerations

#

Oregon federal practitioners should track Ninth Circuit developments, as circuit-wide guidance may emerge addressing AI use in appellate briefs and motions.

Oregon Professional Liability Considerations

#

OSB Professional Liability Fund

#

Oregon’s unique mandatory malpractice coverage through the Professional Liability Fund (PLF) provides important protections and guidance:

Risk Management Recommendations:

• Document AI use and verification procedures
• Maintain records of independent verification for all AI-assisted work
• Review PLF practice aids addressing technology risks
• Consult PLF practice management advisors on AI implementation

Coverage Considerations:

• Review policy terms for technology-related exclusions
• Understand how AI errors might be categorized
• Document reasonable care in AI implementation
• Report potential claims promptly

Practical Compliance Framework for Oregon Attorneys

#

Oregon-Specific Considerations

#

Legal Aid and Access to Justice

#

Oregon has a strong commitment to access to justice. AI may help attorneys:

• Provide more efficient representation to underserved populations
• Reduce costs while maintaining quality
• Expand capacity for pro bono work
• Support rural practice where resources are limited

However, AI use must not compromise quality of representation regardless of client resources.

Technology in Oregon Courts

#

Oregon’s court system has embraced technology through:

• Oregon eCourt system for electronic filing
• Remote hearing capabilities
• Digital record management

AI integration should complement these existing technological frameworks while maintaining ethical compliance.

Anticipated Developments

#

Expected Guidance

#

Oregon attorneys should monitor for:

• OSB ethics opinions addressing AI specifically
• Oregon Judicial Department standing orders on AI disclosure
• PLF guidance on AI risk management
• CLE programming on AI ethics compliance

Proactive Preparation

#

Until formal guidance emerges, Oregon attorneys should:

• Apply existing ORPC principles conservatively to AI use
• Document compliance efforts thoroughly
• Stay informed on developments in other jurisdictions
• Participate in bar discussions on AI regulation

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Resources

#

• Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct
• Oregon State Bar Ethics Opinions
• OSB Professional Liability Fund
• Oregon Judicial Department
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
• AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases nationwide