23 April 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceAlaska Bar AssociationLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Alaska: AI rules for lawyers
Alaska, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
The Alaska Bar Association has a formal opinion on generative AI (Ethics Opinion 2025-1, adopted by the Board of Governors on 23 April 2025). It applies the existing Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (ARPC) rather than creating new rules.
Verify all AI output before relying on it, especially citations and quotes. The opinion says lawyers remain responsible for their own work product, whether a human nonlawyer or AI drafted or researched it. It ties this to ARPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4.
Before putting client confidences or secrets into a generative AI tool, review the tool's policies on data retention, data sharing and self-learning. To use a self-learning tool outside a closed system, fully anonymise the inputs unless the client gives informed consent.
Check court rules and orders yourself. The opinion tells lawyers to confirm whether and when any court rule or order requires disclosure of AI use. No Alaska court rule or order of that kind was found.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. No Alaska state court rule or Supreme Court order, and no District of Alaska general order or local rule, requiring disclosure or certification of AI use was found. The Bar opinion says lawyers should check for any such requirement.
Client disclosure/consent: depends. Opinion 2025-1 says the duty to tell a client depends on the circumstances (ARPC 1.2, 1.4). A lawyer should answer a client's questions candidly.
Proactive disclosure may be needed when AI is used in a novel way or for substantive work, is a significant expense, or would breach the engagement terms or the client's reasonable expectations. Informed consent is needed where an AI tool may disclose confidences to third parties.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Alaska in the last 12 months
No new or changed AI rules recorded for Alaska in the last 12 months.
AI instruments
State bar and regulators
Sources
- Alaska Bar Association: Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law · last checked
- Court Rules index · last checked
- Supreme Court Orders index · last checked
- General Orders and Local Rules · last checked
- Alaska Court System · last checked
- Alaska Bar Association · last checked
- Alaska State Legislature · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.