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 · NC

AI Rules for Lawyers in North Carolina 2026

By Sabih Siddiqi, founder of Irys and former BigLaw litigatorVerified as of September 2026
AI disclosure required?Case-by-case
Sanctions on recordNone final (case pending)
Competence ruleRule 1.1, Comment 8
AI / technology CLE1 technology hour / yr

Quick answer

North Carolina does not require lawyers to disclose AI use to a court, but its 2024 ethics opinion directs lawyers to inform clients when confidential information may be processed by an AI tool. The opinion permits AI use only when the lawyer is competent, protects confidentiality, and supervises the output. North Carolina also requires one hour of technology CLE each year.

Ethics guidance

North Carolina 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1

Adopted November 2024

North Carolina's guidance is 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, 'Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice,' adopted by the North Carolina State Bar in November 2024.

The opinion permits a lawyer to use AI only when the lawyer can do so competently, protect client confidentiality, and supervise the output. Ultimate responsibility for the work product stays with the lawyer, not the tool. The opinion directs lawyers to inform clients when confidential information may be processed by a third-party AI system, and to resolve any privilege concerns before doing so.

Source: North Carolina State Bar, 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1

Disclosure rules

Are North Carolina lawyers required to disclose AI use?

North Carolina imposes no blanket duty to disclose AI use to a court. The 2024 opinion focuses on client communication: a lawyer should inform the client when confidential information may be processed by an AI tool, and explain the relevant risks and benefits.

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

Source: North Carolina State Bar, 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1

Sanctions on record

AI hallucination sanctions in North Carolina

North Carolina courts have engaged directly with fabricated AI citations. In Creech v. City of Raleigh (N.C. Ct. App., COA25-513, decided May 2026, unpublished), the plaintiff-appellant's brief cited two fictitious cases that an outside contract researcher had introduced using an AI research tool; the court's opinion addressed the underlying governmental-immunity issues and did not impose a sanction over the fabricated citations in the portions publicly reported. In Damon Forney v. Township of Cary, North Carolina (E.D.N.C., August 2026), the court entered an adverse-costs order and referred counsel for discipline. Other 2026 North Carolina matters have drawn no sanction or an apology rather than a monetary penalty.

Sources: Creech v. City of Raleigh, North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion, AI Hallucination Cases Database (damiencharlotin.com), North Carolina case records

Competence duty

The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1, Comment 8)

The competence duty in North Carolina is Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, with Comment 8 on the benefits and risks of relevant technology. The 2024 opinion reads this duty to require competence in any AI tool the lawyer uses, including an understanding of how it can produce inaccurate output.

Source: North Carolina State Bar, 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1

CLE requirements

Continuing legal education in North Carolina

North Carolina is one of the few states with a standalone technology CLE requirement. Lawyers must complete 1 hour of technology training each reporting period as part of the annual CLE requirement, and that hour must be taken each period rather than carried over. There is no separate AI-only requirement, but AI training can satisfy the technology hour.

Source: North Carolina State Bar CLE, member requirements

How to stay compliant

A practical checklist for North Carolina lawyers

North Carolina pairs a clear ethics opinion with a standing technology-CLE hour, so AI competence here is both an ethical duty and a continuing-education line item.

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

North Carolina AI rules: common questions

Not to a court as a blanket rule. The 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 directs lawyers to inform clients when confidential information may be processed by an AI tool and to explain the risks and benefits. North Carolina has no statewide rule requiring AI disclosure in filings.

2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 permits AI use only when the lawyer is competent, protects client confidentiality, and supervises the output. Responsibility for the work product remains with the lawyer, and clients should be informed when their confidential information may be processed by a third-party AI system.

No final state-court sanction is on record as of June 2026. One matter raising fabricated AI citations, Creech v. City of Raleigh, was before the North Carolina Court of Appeals as of mid-2026, with no sanction entered at that time.

Yes. North Carolina requires 1 hour of technology training each reporting period, and that hour must be taken each period rather than carried over. There is no separate AI-only requirement, but AI training can satisfy the technology hour.

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, with Comment 8 on the benefits and risks of relevant technology. The 2024 opinion reads this to require competence in any AI tool, including an understanding of how it can produce inaccurate output.

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 North Carolina 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