Skip to main content
New: Introducing Irys Workbench, agents to take up the work for you. See Workbench
Book a DemoStart Free Trial

AI rules by state · KY

AI Rules for Lawyers in Kentucky 2026

By Sabih Siddiqi, founder of Irys and former BigLaw litigatorVerified as of September 2026
AI disclosure required?Case-by-case
Governing guidanceKBA Ethics Op. E-457 (2024)
Competence ruleSCR 3.130(1.1)
AI / technology CLENo tech or AI requirement

Quick answer

Kentucky does not require routine disclosure of AI use to clients, but its bar guidance treats disclosure as necessary when AI work is material or is outsourced to a third party. The Kentucky Bar Association's ethics opinion, issued in 2024, requires lawyers to verify every AI-generated authority and to maintain competence in the tools they use.

Ethics guidance

Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-457

Interim opinion, issued March 2024

Kentucky's guidance is KBA Ethics Opinion E-457, an interim opinion issued by the Kentucky Bar Association in March 2024 while a bar task force continues its work.

The opinion applies existing duties to AI. It requires lawyers to verify all AI-generated authorities before relying on them, to protect client confidentiality, and to maintain competence in any AI tool they use. It suggests that a failure to use available technology can itself raise a competence concern. It also recommends that firms, including solo practitioners, adopt a written AI policy.

Source: Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (PDF)

Disclosure rules

Are Kentucky lawyers required to disclose AI use?

Kentucky does not mandate disclosure of routine AI use to clients. KBA E-457 treats client disclosure as required when AI work is material or is outsourced to a third party, and otherwise leaves it to the lawyer's judgment.

Kentucky has no statewide court rule requiring AI disclosure in filings, so counsel should review the assigned judge's standing order in each matter.

Source: Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (PDF)

Sanctions on record

AI hallucination sanctions in Kentucky

Kentucky has a state-court matter on record, though not a monetary one. In Crowder v. Yussman (Kentucky Court of Appeals, October 2025), the court warned counsel directly, citing Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1): 'purposelessly submitting a brief to a Court of law without confirming that the cited case law even exists is an affront to the dignity of the Court system, the legal profession as a whole, the judiciary, the client, and the public at large.' No monetary or professional sanction was imposed in that matter.

A Kentucky federal court has also addressed the issue. In United States v. Thomas Czartorski, et al. (W.D. Ky. 2025), the court issued an order to show cause after counsel acknowledged entering case citations into ChatGPT and asking it to highlight favorable arguments. No Kentucky lawyer-party matter has resulted in a monetary sanction or bar referral as of June 2026, but both the state Court of Appeals and the federal district court have put counsel on notice.

Source: Crowder v. Yussman, Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion (AI Hallucination Cases Database, damiencharlotin.com)

Competence duty

The competence rule and AI (SCR 3.130(1.1))

The competence duty in Kentucky is Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1), which follows the ABA model and includes staying abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. KBA E-457 reads this duty to require both an understanding of the AI tool and independent verification of its output.

Source: Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (PDF)

CLE requirements

Continuing legal education in Kentucky

Kentucky's continuing legal education requirements are set by Supreme Court Rule 3.645. There is no AI or technology-specific CLE requirement as of September 2026, though AI programs can count toward the general requirement.

Source: Kentucky Bar Association, CLE Supreme Court Rules index (SCR 3.645)

How to stay compliant

A practical checklist for Kentucky lawyers

Kentucky's bar reads competence to favor using AI well rather than avoiding it, so the duty here is to verify output and document a sensible AI policy.

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

Kentucky AI rules: common questions

Not for routine use. KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 treats client disclosure as required when AI work is material or is outsourced to a third party, and otherwise leaves it to the lawyer's judgment. Kentucky has no statewide rule requiring AI disclosure in court filings.

KBA E-457 requires lawyers to verify all AI-generated authorities, protect client confidentiality, and maintain competence in any AI tool. It is an interim opinion issued in 2024 while a bar task force continues its work, and it recommends a written AI policy even for solo practitioners.

No Kentucky state-court AI sanction is on record as of June 2026. A Kentucky-licensed attorney was sanctioned in a federal appeal before the Sixth Circuit, but that matter arose in federal court rather than a Kentucky state court.

Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1), the duty of competence, which includes staying abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. E-457 reads it to require understanding the tool and verifying its output.

No. Kentucky requires 12 CLE credits per year, including 2 ethics hours. There is no AI-specific requirement, though AI programs can count toward the total.

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 Kentucky state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified September 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