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

Virginia AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Table of Contents

Virginia attorneys navigating artificial intelligence must apply the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct to emerging AI technologies. While the Virginia State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the existing ethical framework provides clear direction for responsible AI integration in legal practice. Virginia’s proximity to Washington, D.C., and its concentration of federal practitioners makes AI ethics compliance particularly important for the Commonwealth’s legal community.


Virginia State Bar Overview
#

Regulatory Authority
#

The Virginia State Bar (VSB) serves as the regulatory body for attorneys licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Operating under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the VSB administers attorney licensing, discipline, and ethical guidance.

Contact Information:

  • Address: 1111 East Main Street, Suite 700, Richmond, VA 23219
  • Phone: (804) 775-0500
  • Website: vsb.org

Ethics Resources
#

The VSB provides ethics guidance through:

  • Legal Ethics Opinions: Formal opinions interpreting the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Ethics Hotline: (804) 775-0564 for informal guidance on ethics questions
  • Professional Guidelines: Published standards for attorney conduct

Current AI Guidance Status
#

Guidance Status
As of January 2025, the Virginia State Bar has not issued formal AI-specific ethics guidance. Attorneys must apply existing Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use, guided by ABA Formal Opinion 512 and guidance from other jurisdictions.

Virginia attorneys should monitor the VSB website for emerging AI guidance. The VSB Standing Committee on Legal Ethics regularly issues opinions addressing new technologies and their ethical implications.


Core Ethical Obligations for AI Use
#

Rule 1.1: Competence
#

Virginia Rule 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation, which includes “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

AI Competence Requirements:

  1. Understand AI Capabilities and Limitations: Before using AI tools, attorneys must understand what the technology can and cannot reliably do
  2. Verify All AI Outputs: AI-generated legal research, drafting, and analysis must be independently verified
  3. Recognize AI Hallucinations: Attorneys must understand that generative AI can fabricate citations, quotes, and legal principles
  4. Stay Current on Technology: The duty of competence includes keeping abreast of technological changes affecting legal practice
Verification Is Mandatory
Virginia attorneys must independently verify all AI-generated content before relying on it for client matters. Failure to verify constitutes incompetent representation.

Practical Steps for Competent AI Use:

  • Verify all case citations in Westlaw, Lexis, or official reporters
  • Check quoted language against original sources
  • Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority
  • Review AI-generated analysis for logical consistency
  • Cross-reference AI legal conclusions with authoritative sources

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality
#

Virginia Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosure of information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or disclosure is impliedly authorized.

AI Confidentiality Concerns:

When using AI tools, Virginia attorneys must consider:

  1. Data Processing: How does the AI platform process and store inputted information?
  2. Third-Party Access: Does the platform share data with third parties?
  3. Training Data: Is client information used to train or improve the AI model?
  4. Data Retention: How long is inputted information retained?
  5. Security Measures: What protections exist against unauthorized access?

Risk Mitigation Strategies:

  • Review AI platform Terms of Service and Privacy Policies thoroughly
  • Use enterprise or professional versions with enhanced privacy protections
  • Consider AI tools that offer local processing or on-premises deployment
  • Anonymize or redact client-identifying information before input
  • Document your due diligence in protecting client information
  • Obtain informed consent before inputting confidential information into AI systems

Rule 1.3: Diligence
#

Virginia Rule 1.3 requires attorneys to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients.

AI and Diligence Obligations:

  • AI tools should enhance, not replace, diligent representation
  • Attorneys cannot rely solely on AI without independent verification
  • AI-related delays (technical failures, verification time) do not excuse missed deadlines
  • Using AI to expedite work must not compromise thoroughness

Rule 1.4: Communication
#

Virginia Rule 1.4 requires attorneys to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of matters and explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions.

AI Disclosure Considerations:

Disclosure of AI use may be required when:

  • AI use materially affects the representation or its cost
  • Clients specifically ask about AI use in their matters
  • Confidential information will be processed by AI systems
  • AI use affects fee arrangements or billing practices
  • The client’s informed consent is needed for AI-related decisions

Best Practice: Include AI use provisions in engagement letters and discuss AI practices during initial client consultations.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
#

Virginia Rule 3.3 prohibits making false statements to a tribunal and requires disclosure of controlling legal authority.

AI and Court Filings:

Critical Warning
Submitting AI-generated content containing fabricated citations or false legal propositions violates Rule 3.3 and may result in sanctions, discipline, and malpractice liability.

Attorneys must:

  • Verify every citation before filing
  • Confirm all quoted language is accurate
  • Ensure legal propositions are correctly stated
  • Disclose AI use if required by local court rules

Rule 5.1: Supervisory Responsibilities
#

Virginia Rule 5.1 requires partners and supervisory lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure firm lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

AI Supervision Duties:

Managing attorneys and partners must:

  • Establish clear firm policies on AI use
  • Provide training on ethical AI use
  • Create verification protocols for AI-generated work
  • Ensure adequate supervision of AI use by associates and staff
  • Monitor compliance with AI policies

Rule 5.3: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance
#

Virginia Rule 5.3 extends supervision responsibilities to nonlawyer assistants, including technological tools.

AI as a “Nonlawyer Assistant”:

Courts and ethics authorities increasingly treat AI systems as analogous to nonlawyer assistants. Attorneys must:

  • Supervise AI use as they would supervise a paralegal or legal assistant
  • Ensure AI outputs meet professional standards
  • Take responsibility for AI-generated work product
  • Not delegate professional judgment to AI systems

Billing and Fee Considerations
#

Rule 1.5: Reasonable Fees
#

Virginia Rule 1.5 requires fees to be reasonable. AI use raises several billing considerations:

Permissible Billing Practices:

  • Time spent crafting and refining AI prompts
  • Time reviewing and verifying AI outputs
  • Time editing and improving AI-generated content
  • Actual time invested in creating work product

Prohibited Billing Practices:

  • Billing for time not actually worked
  • Charging the client for hours “saved” by AI efficiency
  • Misrepresenting AI-assisted work as fully manual
  • Excessive fees that don’t reflect actual effort

Best Practice: Discuss AI-related billing with clients upfront. Consider whether AI efficiencies should result in reduced fees or faster turnaround rather than inflated bills.


Virginia Court Considerations
#

Federal Courts in Virginia
#

The U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia have addressed AI use in litigation:

Standing Orders: Attorneys should review local rules and standing orders regarding AI disclosure requirements. Federal courts nationwide have increasingly required attorneys to certify that AI-generated content has been verified.

Virginia State Courts
#

Virginia state courts follow the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Attorneys should:

  • Monitor for local court orders addressing AI use
  • Certify accuracy of all filed documents regardless of preparation method
  • Be prepared to disclose AI use if asked by the court

Practical Compliance Checklist
#

Virginia AI Compliance Checklist

Before Using AI:

  1. Assess whether the AI tool is appropriate for the task
  2. Review the platform’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
  3. Verify data protection measures meet confidentiality requirements
  4. Consider whether client consent is needed
  5. Ensure you understand the AI’s capabilities and limitations

During AI Use: 6. Avoid inputting confidential information without adequate protections 7. Use clear, specific prompts for better outputs 8. Maintain professional judgment, don’t outsource thinking to AI 9. Document your AI use and verification process

After AI Generates Content: 10. Independently verify all case citations 11. Check all quoted language against original sources 12. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 13. Review for logical consistency and accuracy 14. Edit for voice, style, and client-specific needs

For Billing: 15. Track actual time spent (not hypothetical manual time) 16. Bill only for work performed 17. Disclose AI use to clients as appropriate 18. Consider how AI efficiencies affect fee reasonableness

For Supervision: 19. Train all attorneys and staff on AI policies 20. Establish verification requirements 21. Create quality control checkpoints 22. Document compliance efforts


Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct Reference
#

RuleObligationAI Application
Rule 1.1CompetenceUnderstand AI; verify all outputs
Rule 1.3DiligenceAI enhances, not replaces, thorough work
Rule 1.4CommunicationDisclose AI use when material
Rule 1.5FeesBill only actual time; fees must be reasonable
Rule 1.6ConfidentialityProtect client data in AI systems
Rule 3.3CandorVerify all AI content before court submission
Rule 5.1Supervisory DutiesEstablish AI policies; ensure compliance
Rule 5.3Nonlawyer AssistanceSupervise AI like nonlawyer assistants

Malpractice Considerations
#

Virginia attorneys should consider malpractice implications of AI use:

  • Insurance Coverage: Review whether your malpractice policy covers AI-related claims
  • Disclosure Requirements: Some insurers require disclosure of AI use
  • Documentation: Maintain records of verification procedures as potential defense evidence
  • Risk Management: Implement AI policies that demonstrate reasonable care

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Does Virginia require disclosure of AI use to clients?

Virginia has not issued specific AI disclosure requirements. However, under Rule 1.4, disclosure may be required when AI use materially affects the representation, when clients inquire about AI use, when confidential information is involved, or when AI impacts fees. Best practice is to address AI use in engagement letters and discuss it during client consultations.

Can Virginia attorneys use ChatGPT for legal research?

Yes, but with significant verification requirements. Virginia Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, which includes verifying all AI-generated research before relying on it. Attorneys must independently confirm all citations exist, check quoted language against original sources, Shepardize/KeyCite cited authority, and review analysis for accuracy. Never file anything based solely on AI-generated research.

How should Virginia attorneys handle confidential information with AI tools?

Under Rule 1.6, attorneys must protect client confidential information. Before using AI, review the platform’s terms of service and privacy policy, verify data isn’t shared with third parties or used for training, consider using enterprise versions with enhanced privacy, and when appropriate, anonymize information or obtain client consent before inputting confidential data.

What are the supervision requirements for AI use in Virginia law firms?

Under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, managing attorneys must establish clear AI use policies, provide training on ethical AI practices, create verification protocols, ensure adequate supervision of AI-assisted work, and monitor compliance. Treat AI supervision similarly to supervising nonlawyer assistants.

How should Virginia attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?

Under Rule 1.5, fees must be reasonable. Bill only for time actually spent, including time crafting prompts, reviewing outputs, and verifying content. Do not bill for hypothetical time that would have been spent without AI. Discuss AI billing practices with clients upfront and ensure fees reflect the actual value and effort provided.

Resources
#

Virginia Resources
#

National Resources
#


Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Virginia?

While Virginia has not yet issued comprehensive AI guidance, the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct provide a clear framework for responsible AI use. Understanding your obligations under these rules is essential for compliant AI integration in your practice.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

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.

Louisiana AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Louisiana operates under its own unique legal tradition, the civil law system, which distinguishes it from the common law jurisdictions of other states. As Louisiana attorneys increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into their practices, they must navigate AI ethics within this distinctive legal framework while adhering to the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.