AI rules by state · WA
AI Rules for Lawyers in Washington 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- Case-by-case
- Governing guidance
- WSBA Advisory Op. 2025-05
- Sanctions on record
- None in state courts
- Competence rule
- RPC 1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- No tech or AI requirement
Quick answer
Washington does not require lawyers to disclose AI use, and disclosure to a court is required only where that court's own rules require it. The Washington State Bar Association's advisory opinion on AI directs lawyers to maintain competence in the tools they use, protect client confidentiality, and verify AI output before relying on it.
Ethics guidance
WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05
Issued 2025
Washington's guidance is the Washington State Bar Association's Advisory Opinion 2025-05, 'Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice.'
The opinion applies a range of existing duties to AI, including competence, diligence, client communication, confidentiality, candor, and supervision. It ties competence to a baseline understanding of, and reasonable proficiency in, the technology a lawyer uses. On court disclosure, the opinion makes clear that a lawyer must disclose AI use only where a particular court's rules require it.
Disclosure rules
Are Washington lawyers required to disclose AI use?
Washington imposes no blanket duty to disclose AI use. The advisory opinion addresses client communication and consent through the existing rules, and it makes court disclosure contingent on the rules of the specific court.
The practical step is therefore to review the assigned court's local rules and the judge's standing order in each matter.
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Washington
No Washington state-court AI-hallucination sanction is on record as of June 2026. A Washington-licensed attorney was sanctioned in a federal court in Arizona and referred to the Washington State Bar, but that matter arose outside Washington's courts. The verification duty applies regardless.
Source: Coverage of AI hallucination sanctions involving a Washington-licensed attorney
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (RPC 1.1)
The competence duty in Washington is Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. Advisory Opinion 2025-05 applies it to AI directly, requiring a baseline understanding of and reasonable proficiency in the technology a lawyer uses, along with verification of its output.
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Washington
Washington requires 45 CLE credits every three years. There is no standalone AI or technology CLE requirement as of June 2026, since technology topics fall within the general law-and-legal-procedure category. AI-focused programs can count toward the requirement.
Source: Washington Courts, Admission and Practice Rules (CLE)
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Washington lawyers
Washington ties court disclosure to each court's own rules, so the practical step is to read the assigned court's requirements and verify every AI output.
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
Washington AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Washington’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 Washington 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