AI rules by state · NJ
AI Rules for Lawyers in New Jersey 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- No
- Governing guidance
- NJ Supreme Court Guidelines (2024)
- Sanctions on record
- NJ attorney sanctioned in E.D. Pa. (2026), $5,000
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- 1 tech/AI credit from 2027
Quick answer
New Jersey does not require lawyers to disclose AI use to courts or clients. The state Supreme Court's preliminary guidelines state that the conduct rules do not impose an AI-disclosure duty. They also make clear that the use of AI does not excuse the filing of false or fabricated material, so the lawyer must verify everything an AI tool produces before it is submitted.
Ethics guidance
New Jersey Supreme Court Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of AI by New Jersey Lawyers
January 2024
New Jersey's reference point is the Supreme Court's Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers, issued in January 2024.
The guidelines do not create new obligations. They apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use across five areas: accuracy and truthfulness, candor and communication, confidentiality, the prevention of misconduct including discrimination, and oversight of the work. The throughline is that a lawyer remains responsible for AI output and must review it for accuracy. Using a tool does not shift the duty to verify, and it does not excuse the submission of false or fabricated material to a court.
Source: New Jersey Courts, Preliminary Guidelines on AI (PDF)
Disclosure rules
Are New Jersey lawyers required to disclose AI use?
New Jersey does not require lawyers to disclose AI use. The Supreme Court's guidelines state expressly that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not require disclosure of AI use.
The duty that remains is verification. A lawyer must confirm the accuracy of AI-generated content and may not submit false, fabricated, or misleading material to a court, whether or not AI produced it.
Source: New Jersey Courts, Preliminary Guidelines on AI (PDF)
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in New Jersey
There is a sanction involving a New Jersey lawyer, with an important detail about the forum. In Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations, Inc., a federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania imposed a $5,000 sanction on a New Jersey-licensed attorney and ordered AI and ethics CLE after he filed a brief with fabricated AI citations. It was his second such offense. The matter was decided in a Pennsylvania federal court, not a New Jersey court.
No New Jersey state-court or New Jersey federal-court AI-hallucination sanction was found on record as of June 2026. The principle nonetheless applies in New Jersey: filing AI-fabricated citations carries the risk of sanctions and professional discipline.
Source: New Jersey lawyer fined $5,000 for second misuse of AI (Bloomberg Law)
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1)
The competence duty in New Jersey is Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. New Jersey took a different path from the ABA Model Rule. The Supreme Court declined to add a technology-specific comment to Rule 1.1, on the view that technology competence already falls within the existing duty. It instead adopted a continuing-education requirement to address technology and AI competence directly.
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in New Jersey
New Jersey adopted a technology CLE requirement. Lawyers must complete at least 1 CLE credit in technology-related subjects, which expressly includes artificial intelligence, in each two-year reporting cycle. The requirement takes effect in January 2027 and first applies to the cycle ending December 2027. It sits within New Jersey's broader requirement of 24 credits every two years.
Source: New Jersey Courts, CLE amendments adding a technology credit
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for New Jersey lawyers
New Jersey is unusual in addressing AI competence through a new CLE requirement rather than a rule comment, so plan for the technology credit that begins in 2027.
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
New Jersey AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare New Jersey’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 New Jersey 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