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

South Dakota AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Table of Contents

South Dakota’s legal profession serves a geographically vast state with a small, close-knit bar. While the State Bar of South Dakota has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools. This page provides a comprehensive framework for ethical AI integration in South Dakota legal practice.


Regulatory Body and Bar Information
#

State Bar of South Dakota
#

Type: Unified (mandatory membership)

Member Count: Approximately 3,200 active attorneys

Regulatory Authority: South Dakota Supreme Court

Disciplinary Body: Disciplinary Board of the South Dakota State Bar

Website: statebarofsouthdakota.com

Current AI Guidance Status
#

No Formal AI Guidance Yet
As of 2025, the State Bar of South Dakota has not issued formal ethics opinions specifically addressing attorney use of generative AI. Attorneys should apply existing South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use, with particular attention to competence, confidentiality, and candor requirements.

Guidance Status: No AI-specific guidance issued

Committee Monitoring: Ethics Committee

Approach: Application of existing ethics rules to emerging technology


Core Ethical Obligations for AI Use
#

Competence (Rule 1.1)
#

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

Technological Competence:

  • Comment [8] requires lawyers to stay current with “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”
  • Understanding AI capabilities and limitations is essential for competent use
  • Attorneys must recognize that AI can generate convincing but false information

Verification Requirements:

  • Independently verify all AI-generated legal citations
  • Confirm case holdings and statutory interpretations against primary sources
  • Check that AI outputs accurately reflect current South Dakota law
  • Validate AI analysis for logical coherence and legal accuracy

South Dakota-Specific Considerations:

  • South Dakota has unique statutory schemes and court procedures
  • AI may not accurately capture South Dakota-specific legal nuances
  • Codified laws and court rules require manual verification

Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
#

South Dakota’s confidentiality rule prohibits disclosure of information relating to representation without informed consent:

Data Protection Requirements:

  • Review AI platform terms of service before inputting client information
  • Ensure the platform does not retain, share, or use client data for training
  • Verify adequate security measures protect inputted information
  • Consider data storage location and third-party access risks

Informed Consent Considerations:

  • Disclose AI use to clients when confidential information will be inputted
  • Obtain consent before using AI systems that may compromise confidentiality
  • Document AI-related consent in engagement letters
Rural Practice Alert
In South Dakota’s small communities, client matters may be identifiable even without names. Extra caution is needed when inputting case details that could reveal client identity through context alone.

Communication (Rule 1.4)
#

Attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed:

AI Disclosure Considerations:

  • Inform clients when AI use materially affects the representation
  • Explain AI’s role in research, drafting, or analysis when asked
  • Discuss billing implications of AI-assisted work
  • Address any client concerns about AI use

Candor to the Tribunal (Rule 3.3)
#

South Dakota attorneys owe a duty of candor to courts:

Pre-Filing Verification:

  • Confirm every citation exists before including in court filings
  • Verify quoted language matches original sources exactly
  • Ensure cited authority remains good law through proper checking
  • Review AI-generated legal arguments for accuracy

Correction Obligations:

  • Promptly correct any AI-generated errors discovered after filing
  • Notify the court of material inaccuracies
  • Withdraw citations that prove to be fabricated or misrepresented

Fees (Rule 1.5)
#

South Dakota requires reasonable fees:

Ethical Billing for AI-Assisted Work:

  • Bill only for time actually spent on AI-assisted work
  • Do not charge for time saved through AI efficiency
  • Pass AI efficiency benefits along to clients
  • Disclose AI-related costs in fee agreements

Prohibited Practices:

  • Billing for hours not actually worked
  • Charging manual rates for AI-assisted tasks
  • Failing to adjust fees to reflect efficiency gains

Supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3)
#

Partners and supervisory attorneys must ensure proper AI use:

Supervisory Duties:

  • Establish firm policies for AI use
  • Train associates and staff on ethical AI practices
  • Create verification protocols for AI-generated content
  • Review AI-assisted work before filing or delivery

South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated
#

RuleObligationAI Application
Rule 1.1CompetenceUnderstand AI capabilities/limitations; verify outputs
Rule 1.3DiligenceDon’t let AI use delay or harm client matters
Rule 1.4CommunicationDisclose AI use when material to representation
Rule 1.6ConfidentialityProtect client data in AI systems
Rule 1.5FeesBill reasonably for AI-assisted work
Rule 3.3CandorVerify all AI content before court submission
Rule 5.1Supervisory DutiesEstablish AI policies; oversee compliance
Rule 5.3Nonlawyer AssistanceSupervise AI use by staff

Special Considerations: Rural Practice in South Dakota
#

Geographic and Demographic Realities
#

South Dakota covers over 77,000 square miles with a population under one million. This creates unique practice conditions:

Vast Service Areas:

  • Many attorneys serve multiple counties
  • Travel distances limit in-person consultations
  • Technology, including AI, can help bridge geographic gaps

Limited Legal Resources:

  • Law libraries may be distant or limited
  • AI can provide research assistance comparable to urban resources
  • However, AI outputs require the same verification as in any jurisdiction

AI Benefits for Rural Practitioners
#

Technology as Equalizer
AI tools can help South Dakota’s rural practitioners access research capabilities similar to large urban firms. However, this benefit comes with responsibility, verification requirements remain unchanged regardless of location.

Access to Resources:

  • AI provides instant research assistance
  • Drafting tools can improve efficiency for solo practitioners
  • Technology helps serve clients across vast distances

Practice Management:

  • AI can assist with routine administrative tasks
  • Document automation reduces workload
  • More time available for substantive legal work

Challenges of Rural Practice with AI
#

Generalist Practice Demands:

  • Rural attorneys often handle diverse practice areas
  • AI outputs in unfamiliar areas require extra scrutiny
  • Limited opportunities for specialization increase verification burden

Technology Infrastructure:

  • Internet connectivity may be unreliable in rural areas
  • Cloud-based AI tools require stable connections
  • Consider offline backup resources

Small Community Dynamics:

  • Client matters may be identifiable without names
  • Professional reputation is paramount in small communities
  • AI errors can damage relationships quickly

Tribal Law Considerations
#

South Dakota is home to nine federally recognized tribal nations. Attorneys practicing in or adjacent to Indian Country should consider:

Limited AI Training on Tribal Law:

  • AI systems have minimal training data on tribal codes and customs
  • Tribal court procedures may not be represented in AI databases
  • Extra verification required for any tribal law matters

Cultural Sensitivity:

  • AI cannot understand cultural context essential to tribal practice
  • Traditional practices require human judgment, not AI processing
  • Consult directly with tribal courts and practitioners

Court Orders and Local Rules
#

South Dakota State Courts
#

As of 2025, South Dakota state courts have not issued specific orders regarding AI use. Attorneys should:

  • Comply with existing signature and certification requirements
  • Ensure AI-generated filings meet court formatting standards
  • Be prepared for potential judicial inquiries about AI use
  • Monitor Supreme Court and circuit court announcements

Federal Courts in South Dakota
#

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has not issued AI-specific standing orders. Attorneys should:

  • Follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 certification requirements
  • Comply with any case-specific AI disclosure orders
  • Monitor the court’s website for updated guidance

Practical Compliance Steps for South Dakota Attorneys
#

South Dakota AI Compliance Checklist

Before Using AI:

  1. Review AI platform terms of service and privacy policies
  2. Assess confidentiality protections and data handling practices
  3. Consider client consent requirements
  4. Establish written AI use policies for your practice

During AI Use: 5. Never input confidential information without adequate protections 6. Be extra cautious with identifiable details in small communities 7. Maintain professional judgment in all substantive decisions 8. Document your verification process

After AI Generates Content: 9. Independently verify all citations in Westlaw, Lexis, or Fastcase 10. Confirm quoted language matches original sources exactly 11. Check South Dakota-specific statutes and rules manually 12. Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority

For Billing: 13. Bill only for time actually spent 14. Don’t charge for time saved through AI efficiency 15. Disclose AI-related costs to clients

For Supervision: 16. Train all lawyers and staff on AI policies 17. Require verification before any AI content is filed 18. Establish quality control protocols


Continuing Legal Education#

South Dakota CLE Requirements
#

South Dakota attorneys must complete:

  • 10 hours of CLE annually
  • At least 2 hours in ethics every two years

AI-Relevant CLE Topics:

  • Technology competence
  • Ethics and technology
  • Law practice management
  • Rural practice challenges

Bar Resources
#

The State Bar of South Dakota offers:

  • Ethics hotline for member questions
  • Practice resources and publications
  • CLE programs on emerging issues

Malpractice Insurance Considerations
#

South Dakota attorneys should review professional liability coverage:

Key Questions:

  • Does the policy address AI-related claims?
  • Are there technology-related exclusions?
  • Does AI use require disclosure to the insurer?
  • What documentation supports defense of claims?

Risk Management:

  • Document verification procedures
  • Maintain records of AI tools and review processes
  • Consider coverage adequacy for AI-related risks

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Has South Dakota issued AI ethics guidance for attorneys?

No. As of 2025, the State Bar of South Dakota has not issued formal ethics opinions specifically addressing attorney use of AI or generative AI. Attorneys should apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), and candor (Rule 3.3), to their AI use.

Can South Dakota attorneys use AI for legal research?

Yes, with appropriate verification. Attorneys may use AI tools for research but must independently verify all citations, quotations, and legal propositions before relying on them. AI “hallucinations” create Rule 3.3 candor issues if included in court filings without verification. South Dakota-specific law requires manual checking.

What confidentiality protections are required for AI use?

Before inputting client information into AI systems, verify that the platform has adequate security measures, does not retain or share client data, and does not use inputs for training. In South Dakota’s small communities, be especially cautious, client matters may be identifiable even without names.

How should South Dakota attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?

Bill only for time actually spent on AI-assisted work. You may charge for time reviewing, verifying, and editing AI outputs, but cannot bill for time saved through AI efficiency. If AI completes research in 20 minutes that would have taken 4 hours manually, bill 20 minutes.

Are there special considerations for using AI in tribal matters?

Yes. AI systems have limited training data on tribal law and may produce confident but incorrect information. For tribal code interpretation, customary law, or matters in tribal courts, verify directly with tribal sources rather than relying on AI. Tribal practice requires cultural competence that AI cannot provide.

Resources
#


Questions About AI Ethics in South Dakota Legal Practice?

South Dakota's rural practice environment and close-knit legal community create unique considerations for AI ethics compliance. Understanding how to apply the Rules of Professional Conduct to AI technology while serving clients across vast distances is essential.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

North Dakota AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

North Dakota’s legal community, while small, faces the same AI ethics challenges as larger jurisdictions, with unique considerations for rural practice and a tight-knit bar. The State Bar Association of North Dakota has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, but attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools. This page provides a framework for ethical AI integration in North Dakota legal practice.

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.

Illinois AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

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.