California Bar Revises AI Ethics Proposals After Public Feedback; Bloomberg Law, June 22, 2026

 Quinn Wilson, Bloomberg Law; California Bar Revises AI Ethics Proposals After Public Feedback

"The State Bar of California is revising its proposed artificial intelligence guidelines for lawyers, raising the threshold for confidentiality violations and broadening competence requirements after receiving public comments in May.

The amended proposals were approved by the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct on June 12 after taking a May 4 public comment session into account, the Bar said in a press statement Monday. 

The amended proposals will be up for another public comment session on Aug. 6."

More courts are coming down on ‘non-offending counsel’ for AI missteps; ABA Journal, June 10, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT , ABA Journal; More courts are coming down on ‘non-offending counsel’ for AI missteps

"Amid the proliferation of cases involving artificial intelligence-generated hallucinations, more judges are expressing frustration not only at the attorneys who make the mistakes but at opposing counsel for not pointing it out. 

In the past year, courts have admonished attorneys for failing to identify and report fake citations in their opponents’ court filings. In at least two cases, judges refused to award attorney fees or grant relief to counsel who didn’t bring AI-induced errors to their attention."

Federal judge removes 4 plaintiff and defense attorneys over AI errors; ABA Journal, June 10, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT, ABA Journal ; Federal judge removes 4 plaintiff and defense attorneys over AI errors

"A federal judge in Mississippi on Monday disqualified the plaintiff counsel and the defense counsel after both parties filed briefs with artificial intelligence-generated mistakes in a dispute over attorney fees.

“This case presents the court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,” said Senior U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi in her June 8 order...

Aycock revoked Wilson’s and Williams’ pro hac vice statuses and barred them from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also ordered all four attorneys to pay monetary sanctions, ranging from $1,000 each for the local counsel to $2,500 for Williams and $3,500 for Wilson."

Prosecutor suspended by state supreme court for artificial intelligence use in court docs; ABA Journal, May 7, 2026

 ABA Journal; Prosecutor suspended by state supreme court for artificial intelligence use in court docs

"A Georgia prosecutor who repeatedly filed documents with artificial intelligence-generated citations that referenced cases that were wrong or fictitious during a murder trial has been suspended for six months from practicing before the Georgia Supreme Court.

Law & Crime has the story." 

Google’s AI Summary Invents State Ethics Rules… And It’s Not A Hallucination Problem; Above The Law, May 6, 2026

  Joe Patrice , Above The Law; Google’s AI Summary Invents State Ethics Rules… And It’s Not A Hallucination Problem

"If you’re a Pennsylvania lawyer wondering whether you need to disclose AI use in your court filings, Google’s AI summary has an authoritative answer for you. It’s a wrong answer, mind you. But authoritative!...

If one opens an incognito window and searches Google for “Pennsylvania AI disclosure lawyers,” the AI-generated summary will explain that “Key developments include mandatory disclosure of Generative AI (GAI) in court filings.” Throw in “August 2024” because you vaguely remember seeing something about AI on that date and the result reads “As of August 2024, Pennsylvania mandates explicit disclosure of AI use in all court submissions, making transparency a mandatory filing requirement.”

None of that is true.

The Legal AI Governance tracker, an invaluable tool maintained by Brian Alenduff of Desired Path Consulting, provides a comprehensive rundown of Pennsylvania’s AI rules. There are standing orders in some courtrooms, and the state supreme court issued a rule governing court personnel only, but as for the state of Pennsylvania writ large, there is no statewide rule as of now. The tracker notes that what Pennsylvania does have is Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, a 2024 advisory ethics opinion from the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association flagging AI as a competence issue under existing rules. But that opinion explicitly states that it is “advisory only and is not binding.” The ABA’s own 50-state survey classifies Pennsylvania as “court dependent.”...

Hallucinations are all the rage right now, but over the long haul the greater AI risk will be an unfailingly credulous bot elevating and validating mistakes until the error gets picked up as reality."

Penalties stack up as AI spreads through the legal system; NPR, April 3, 2026

Martin Kaste, NPR; Penalties stack up as AI spreads through the legal system

""Recently we had 10 cases from 10 different courts on a single day," says Damien Charlotin, a researcher at the business school HEC Paris who keeps a worldwide tally of instances of courts sanctioning people for using erroneous information generated by AI...

The numbers started taking off last year, and Charlotin says the rate is still increasing. He counts a total of more than 1,200 to date, of which about 800 are from U.S. courts.

Penalties are also on the rise, he says. A federal court may have set a record last month with an order for a lawyer in Oregon to pay $109,700 in sanctions and costs for filing AI-generated errors.

The professional embarrassments even take place at the level of state supreme courts...

"I am surprised that people are still doing this when it's been in the news," says Carla Wale, associate dean of information & technology and director of the law library at the University of Washington School of Law. She's designing special training in AI ethics for students who are interested. But she also says the ethical rules aren't completely settled...

When lawyers get in trouble for using AI, it's because they've violated the long-standing rule that holds them responsible for the accuracy of their filings, regardless of how they were generated."

Sanctions ramping up in cases involving AI hallucinations; ABA Journal, April 2, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT, ABA Journal ; Sanctions ramping up in cases involving AI hallucinations

"The use of monetary sanctions against attorneys is seemingly on the rise as courts continue to address artificial intelligence-generated hallucinations in case documents."

Generative AI and Legal Ethics; JD Supra, September 20, 2024

 Craig Brodsky, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, JD Supra; Generative AI and Legal Ethics

 "In his scathing opinion, Cullen joined judges from New York Massachusetts and North Carolina, among others, by concluding that improper use of AI generated authorities may give rise to sanctions and disciplinary charges...

As a result, on July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional issued Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. The ABA Standing Committee issued the opinion primarily because GAI tools are a “rapidly moving target” that can create significant ethical issues. The committee believed it necessary to offer “general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape.”

The committee’s general guidance is helpful, but the general nature of Opinion 512 it underscores part of my main concern — GAI has a wide-ranging impact on how lawyers practice that will increase over time. Unsurprisingly, at present, GAI implicates at least eight ethical rules ranging from competence (Md. Rule 19-301.1) to communication (Md. Rule 19-301.4), to fees (Md. Rule 19-301.5), to confidentiality, (Md. Rule 19-301.6), to supervisory obligations (Md. Rule 19-305.1 and Md. Rule 305.3) to the duties of a lawyer before tribunal to be candid and pursue meritorious claims and defenses. (Md. Rules 19-303.1 and 19-303.3).

As a technological feature of practice, lawyers cannot simply ignore GAI. The duty of competence under Rule 19-301.1 includes technical competence, and GAI is just another step forward. It is here to stay. We must embrace it but use it smartly.

Let it be an adjunct to your practice rather than having Chat GPT write your brief. Ensure that your staff understands that GAI can be helpful, but that the work product must be checked for accuracy.

After considering the ethical implications and putting the right processes in place, implement GAI and use it to your clients’ advantage."