AI rules by state · DC
AI Rules for Lawyers in District of Columbia 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- No
- Governing guidance
- DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 (2024)
- Sanctions on record
- None on record
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- No mandatory CLE
Quick answer
The District of Columbia does not require lawyers to disclose AI use. D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388 requires a reasonable, current understanding of how generative AI works before using it, and ties any disclosure to each tribunal's rules and the duty of candor.
Ethics guidance
D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388, Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters
April 2024
The District's reference point is D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388, Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters, issued in April 2024.
The opinion requires a lawyer to have a reasonable and current understanding of how a generative AI tool works before using it, and rejects technological ignorance as an excuse. It applies competence, confidentiality, and candor duties to AI, and ties disclosure to each tribunal's rules rather than a flat mandate.
Source: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388
Disclosure rules
Are District of Columbia lawyers required to disclose AI use?
The District imposes no blanket duty to disclose AI use. Opinion 388 ties disclosure to each tribunal's rules and the duty of candor rather than a categorical mandate.
Counsel should review the assigned judge's standing order in each matter.
Source: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in District of Columbia
No District of Columbia court AI-hallucination sanction is on record as of June 2026. The duty to verify AI output applies regardless, and filing fabricated citations would expose a lawyer to the same sanctions risk seen elsewhere.
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1)
The competence duty in the District is D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. Opinion 388 reads it to require a reasonable, current understanding of how a generative AI tool works before relying on it.
Source: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has no general mandatory continuing legal education requirement, beyond a one-time course for new members, so there is no AI or technology CLE mandate.
Source: D.C. Bar, CLE obligations
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for District of Columbia lawyers
D.C.'s Opinion 388 demands a real understanding of the tool before use, which is the duty to internalize here.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
District of Columbia AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare District of Columbia’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the District of Columbia state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo