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 · MA

AI Rules for Lawyers in Massachusetts 2026

By Sabih Siddiqi, founder of Irys and former BigLaw litigatorVerified as of June 2026
AI disclosure required?Case-by-case
Competence ruleRule 1.1
AI / technology CLENo mandatory CLE

Quick answer

Massachusetts has not issued a formal numbered AI ethics opinion, but its courts have acted. A Superior Court sanctioned a lawyer who filed fabricated AI-generated citations, and the existing Rules of Professional Conduct govern AI use. There is no statewide rule requiring lawyers to disclose AI use, so the controlling duty is to verify everything an AI tool produces.

Ethics guidance

No formal AI ethics opinion; the existing Rules of Professional Conduct apply

As of June 2026

Massachusetts has not adopted a formal numbered AI ethics opinion as of June 2026. The Board of Bar Overseers' Office of Bar Counsel has published educational writing on the risks of generative AI, and the existing Rules of Professional Conduct govern its use.

The concrete guidance in Massachusetts has come from the courts. A Superior Court sanctioned a lawyer for filing fabricated AI-generated citations, which establishes that the duties of competence and candor apply to AI work in the same way they apply to any other filing.

Sources: Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence (Mass.gov, Supreme Judicial Court), Smith v. Farwell (Mass. Super. Ct., Feb. 12, 2024), memorandum and order (case listed in the AI Hallucination Cases Database)

Disclosure rules

Are Massachusetts lawyers required to disclose AI use?

Massachusetts has no statewide rule requiring lawyers to disclose AI use to a court or a client. The existing duties of competence and candor govern, and they require the lawyer to verify AI output rather than to disclose that AI was used.

Counsel should review the assigned judge's standing order in each matter, since individual courts may set their own expectations.

Source: Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence (Mass.gov, Supreme Judicial Court)

Sanctions on record

AI hallucination sanctions in Massachusetts

Massachusetts has a sanction on record. In Smith v. Farwell (Mass. Super. Ct. 2024), the court imposed a $2,000 sanction on a lawyer who filed memoranda containing four fabricated AI-generated citations. The court found no intent to deceive, but held that the failure to verify the citations warranted a sanction.

Source: Smith v. Farwell (Mass. Super. Ct., Feb. 12, 2024), memorandum and order (case listed in the AI Hallucination Cases Database)

Competence duty

The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1)

The competence duty in Massachusetts is Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. Although Massachusetts has not issued an AI-specific opinion, the competence and candor duties apply to AI work, as the Smith v. Farwell sanction confirms. A lawyer must understand a tool's limits and verify its output before relying on it.

Source: Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence (Mass.gov, Supreme Judicial Court)

CLE requirements

Continuing legal education in Massachusetts

Massachusetts has no mandatory continuing legal education requirement. The Supreme Judicial Court repealed Rule 3:16, which had required newly admitted lawyers to complete a Practicing with Professionalism course, effective 14 August 2024, so there is no CLE mandate of any kind and no AI or technology requirement as of September 2026. The competence duty still requires a lawyer to understand the tools used in the representation.

Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, order repealing Rule 3:16 (Mass.gov)

How to stay compliant

A practical checklist for Massachusetts lawyers

Massachusetts has no formal AI opinion, but a Superior Court has already imposed a sanction for unverified AI citations, so the courts have set the expectation directly.

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

Massachusetts AI rules: common questions

No. Massachusetts has no statewide rule requiring disclosure of AI use to a court or a client. The existing duties of competence and candor govern, and they require the lawyer to verify AI output rather than to disclose that AI was used.

Not a formal numbered opinion as of June 2026. The Board of Bar Overseers' Office of Bar Counsel has published educational writing on AI risks, and the existing Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The clearest guidance has come from a court sanction.

Yes. In Smith v. Farwell (Mass. Super. Ct. 2024), the court imposed a $2,000 sanction on a lawyer who filed memoranda with four fabricated AI-generated citations. The court found no intent to deceive but held that the failure to verify warranted a sanction.

Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. The competence and candor duties apply to AI work, as the Smith v. Farwell sanction confirms, so a lawyer must understand a tool's limits and verify its output.

No. Massachusetts has no mandatory CLE requirement at all, so there is no AI or technology mandate. The competence duty still requires a lawyer to understand the tools used in the representation.

Legal AI rules in nearby states

Practising across state lines? Compare Massachusetts’s rules with its neighbors.

AI rules in New HampshireAI rules in New JerseyAI rules in New YorkAI rules in Pennsylvania

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 Massachusetts 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