AI rules by state · MA
AI Rules for Lawyers in Massachusetts 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- Case-by-case
- Governing guidance
- No formal opinion; RPCs apply
- Sanctions on record
- Smith v. Farwell (2024), $2,000
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- No 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.
Source: Smith v. Farwell, Massachusetts Superior Court sanction order (legal coverage)
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: Smith v. Farwell, Massachusetts Superior Court sanction order (legal coverage)
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, Massachusetts Superior Court sanction order (legal coverage)
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: Smith v. Farwell, Massachusetts Superior Court sanction order (legal coverage)
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Massachusetts
Massachusetts does not have a mandatory continuing legal education requirement, so there is no AI or technology CLE mandate. The competence duty still requires a lawyer to understand the tools used in the representation.
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
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Massachusetts’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 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