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

Wisconsin AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Wisconsin Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar of Wisconsin SCR
Table of Contents

Wisconsin has been monitoring AI developments in legal practice, with the State Bar of Wisconsin providing educational resources while existing Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR) Chapter 20 governs attorney conduct. Wisconsin attorneys must navigate AI use through established ethics rules that impose clear obligations around competence, confidentiality, and honesty that directly apply to artificial intelligence integration in legal practice.

Current Regulatory Status
#

State Bar of Wisconsin Position
#

As of 2025, the State Bar of Wisconsin has not issued formal ethics opinions specifically addressing generative AI or large language models. However, the Bar has:

  • Published educational articles on AI in legal practice
  • Offered CLE programming addressing AI ethics
  • Recognized AI as a significant emerging issue for practitioners

Key Resources:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Applied to AI
#

Competence (SCR 20:1.1)
#

Wisconsin’s competence rule requires lawyers to provide representation with “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

AI Competence Requirements:

  • Understand how AI tools function, including their propensity for errors
  • Recognize that generative AI can create convincing but fabricated content
  • Develop sufficient technical knowledge to evaluate AI outputs
  • Maintain human expertise rather than delegating judgment to AI
Wisconsin Technology Competence
Wisconsin Comment [8] to SCR 20:1.1 states attorneys must keep abreast of “changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” This technology competence requirement explicitly extends to AI systems.

Confidentiality (SCR 20:1.6)
#

Wisconsin’s confidentiality rule prohibits revealing information relating to representation without informed consent, except in limited circumstances.

AI Confidentiality Obligations:

  • Evaluate AI platforms’ data security before use
  • Review Terms of Service for data retention and sharing policies
  • Determine whether the AI provider uses inputs for model training
  • Implement appropriate safeguards before inputting client information

Critical Questions for AI Platforms:

  • Is client data encrypted in transit and at rest?
  • Does the provider share data with third parties?
  • Are inputs used to train or improve the AI model?
  • What data retention policies apply?
  • Can data be deleted upon request?

Communication (SCR 20:1.4)
#

Wisconsin Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of matters and explain matters sufficiently for clients to make informed decisions.

AI Communication Considerations:

  • Consider whether material AI use should be disclosed
  • Discuss AI-related fee arrangements with clients
  • Respond to client inquiries about AI use honestly
  • Obtain informed consent when AI use materially affects representation

Candor Toward the Tribunal (SCR 20:3.3)
#

Wisconsin Rule 3.3 prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal.

AI Verification Imperative:

  • All AI-generated case citations must be independently verified
  • Quoted language must be checked against original sources
  • Legal propositions must be confirmed through authoritative research
  • Presenting fabricated AI content to courts violates candor obligations

Supervisory Responsibilities (SCR 20:5.1, 5.3)
#

Wisconsin Rules 5.1 and 5.3 impose supervision duties on partners and supervising attorneys regarding other lawyers and nonlawyer assistants.

AI Supervision Framework:

  • Develop firm-wide AI use policies and procedures
  • Train all personnel on ethical AI use requirements
  • Implement mandatory verification protocols
  • Monitor compliance through quality control measures

Wisconsin Court Requirements
#

Wisconsin Court System
#

Wisconsin courts have not yet implemented mandatory AI disclosure requirements. However, attorneys should:

Monitor Developments:

  • Track Wisconsin Supreme Court rule amendments
  • Review circuit court local rules for AI provisions
  • Check individual judge preferences regarding AI
  • Stay informed on Wisconsin Court of Appeals guidance

Prudent Practices:

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

Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin
#

Federal practitioners in Wisconsin should monitor both districts for AI-related standing orders:

U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin:

  • Milwaukee-based federal court
  • Monitor Local Rules for AI amendments
  • Review assigned judge standing orders

U.S. District Court - Western District of Wisconsin:

  • Madison-based federal court
  • Track Local Rule developments
  • Check individual judge requirements

Seventh Circuit Considerations
#

Wisconsin federal practitioners should follow Seventh Circuit developments, as the circuit has addressed AI issues and may issue additional guidance affecting appellate practice.

Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation
#

Disciplinary Considerations
#

The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigates attorney misconduct. AI-related issues could trigger discipline for:

  • Submitting fabricated citations to courts
  • Breaching client confidentiality through AI platforms
  • Failing to supervise AI use by staff
  • Billing fraud related to AI-assisted work

Risk Mitigation:

  • Document reasonable efforts to comply with ethics rules
  • Maintain verification records
  • Implement and follow written AI policies
  • Address errors promptly and transparently

Practical Compliance Framework for Wisconsin Attorneys
#

Wisconsin AI Compliance Checklist

Pre-Implementation Assessment:

  1. Evaluate AI platform security and data handling practices
  2. Review Terms of Service for confidentiality implications
  3. Assess platform compliance with Wisconsin confidentiality standards
  4. Develop written AI use policies for your practice

Client Relationship Management: 5. Consider disclosure obligations for significant AI use 6. Discuss AI-related fee arrangements upfront 7. Document client communications regarding AI 8. Respect client preferences about AI in their matters

During AI Use: 9. Avoid inputting client-identifying information without safeguards 10. Treat AI output as a draft requiring verification 11. Maintain professional judgment in all substantive decisions 12. Document the verification process

Verification Protocol: 13. Check every case citation in Westlaw or Lexis 14. Verify quoted language against original sources 15. Confirm legal propositions through independent research 16. Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority 17. Review for logical consistency and accuracy

Billing Practices: 18. Bill only for time actually spent 19. Do not charge for hours saved by AI efficiency 20. Ensure fees remain reasonable under SCR 20:1.5 21. Document time entries accurately

Wisconsin-Specific Considerations
#

Rural Practice Considerations
#

Wisconsin has significant rural areas where AI could help:

  • Extend services to underserved communities
  • Reduce overhead for solo and small-firm practitioners
  • Improve efficiency in high-volume matters
  • Support attorneys handling diverse practice areas

However, ethical obligations apply equally regardless of practice location or firm size.

Wisconsin’s Diploma Privilege
#

Wisconsin’s unique diploma privilege for law school graduates doesn’t affect AI ethics obligations. All Wisconsin attorneys, whether bar-examined or diploma-privilege, must comply with SCR Chapter 20 requirements when using AI.

Legal Aid and Pro Bono#

Wisconsin’s legal aid organizations may benefit from AI efficiency gains:

  • Increased capacity for pro bono work
  • More efficient client intake processes
  • Streamlined document preparation
  • Enhanced research capabilities

AI use in legal aid must maintain the same ethical standards as any other practice setting.

Professional Liability Considerations
#

Malpractice Insurance
#

Wisconsin attorneys should review malpractice policies regarding AI:

Coverage Considerations:

  • Check for technology-related exclusions
  • Understand how AI errors might be classified
  • Document reasonable care in AI implementation
  • Report potential claims promptly per policy requirements

Risk Management:

  • Maintain detailed verification records
  • Document AI use policies and training
  • Keep evidence of independent review for all AI-assisted work
  • Consider coverage discussions with insurance providers

Anticipated Developments
#

Expected Guidance
#

Wisconsin attorneys should monitor for:

  • State Bar of Wisconsin ethics opinions on AI
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court rule amendments
  • OLR guidance on AI-related discipline issues
  • CLE programming on emerging best practices

Proactive Preparation
#

Until formal guidance emerges:

  • Apply existing SCR Chapter 20 rules conservatively
  • Document compliance efforts thoroughly
  • Stay informed on developments in other states
  • Participate in bar discussions on AI regulation

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Has Wisconsin issued specific AI guidance for attorneys?

Not yet. As of 2025, the State Bar of Wisconsin has not released formal ethics opinions specifically addressing generative AI. However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Chapter 20, particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), and 3.3 (Candor), provide a clear framework for ethical AI use. Attorneys should apply these existing rules while monitoring for Wisconsin-specific guidance.

Do Wisconsin courts require AI disclosure in filings?

Wisconsin state courts have not yet mandated AI disclosure. However, attorneys must ensure all citations and legal statements are accurate under SCR 20:3.3. Best practice is to independently verify all AI-generated content and be prepared to disclose AI use if questioned. Monitor both state and federal court rules in Wisconsin for developing requirements.

How should Wisconsin attorneys protect confidentiality when using AI?

Before inputting client information into AI systems, evaluate the platform’s security measures and data handling policies. Review Terms of Service to understand data retention, sharing, and training practices. Avoid inputting client-identifying information into platforms that may use data for training or share it with third parties. Consider enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy protections for sensitive client matters.

What verification is required for AI-generated research in Wisconsin?

Under SCR 20:1.1 (Competence) and 3.3 (Candor), Wisconsin attorneys must verify all AI-generated citations, quotes, and legal propositions. This requires checking every case in Westlaw, Lexis, or official reporters; verifying quoted language against original sources; Shepardizing or KeyCiting all authority; and confirming legal propositions through independent research before relying on them.

Can Wisconsin attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?

Yes, but only for time actually spent. Under SCR 20:1.5’s reasonableness requirement, attorneys may bill for time drafting prompts, reviewing outputs, verifying research, and editing AI-generated content. However, billing for time saved by AI efficiency would be improper, if AI completes a task in 15 minutes that previously took 2 hours, bill 15 minutes. Discuss AI billing practices with clients upfront.

What supervision duties apply to AI use in Wisconsin law firms?

Under SCR 20:5.1 and 5.3, partners and supervising attorneys must make reasonable efforts to ensure firm lawyers and nonlawyers comply with professional conduct rules. For AI, this means establishing clear use policies, providing training on ethical AI use, implementing verification protocols, and monitoring compliance. Treat AI supervision similarly to supervising a new associate or paralegal.

Resources
#

Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Wisconsin?

While Wisconsin has not yet issued AI-specific guidance, existing Supreme Court Rules impose clear obligations on attorneys using artificial intelligence. Understanding how SCR Chapter 20 applies to AI use is essential for maintaining compliance and managing professional liability risk in your Wisconsin practice.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Alabama AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Alabama Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Alabama State Bar
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

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Arizona Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Regulatory Sandbox
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

·10 mins
Legal Ethics Colorado Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Colorado Supreme Court
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

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Connecticut Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics CBA State Bar
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

··9 mins
Legal Ethics Delaware Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Court of Chancery Corporate Law State Bar
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

··10 mins
Legal Ethics District of Columbia DC Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics DC Bar
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.