AI rules by state · NC
AI Rules for Lawyers in North Carolina 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- Case-by-case
- Governing guidance
- 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1
- Sanctions on record
- None final (case pending)
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1, Comment 8
- AI / technology CLE
- 1 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
No final North Carolina state-court AI-hallucination 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. The verification duty applies regardless.
Source: UNC School of Government, updates on AI in North Carolina courts
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.
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
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare North Carolina’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 North Carolina 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