--- title: "Alaska: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/alaska" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-AK" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Alaska: AI rules for lawyers > Alaska: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/alaska Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Ethics Opinion 2025-1, Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law](https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf) - [Court Rules index](https://courts.alaska.gov/rules/index.htm) - [Supreme Court Orders index](https://courts.alaska.gov/sco/index.htm) - [General Orders and Local Rules](https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/general-orders) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## 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 #### Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Alaska Bar Association - Date on page: 23 April 2025 - Effective date: 23 April 2025 - Status: 23 April 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf Applies to Alaska lawyers using generative AI. It applies existing Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (including 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3 and 8.4) rather than creating new rules. Lawyers must understand the tool, verify its output including citations, protect client confidences, keep fees reasonable, set firm policies and procedures on AI use, and supervise others who use it. Key points: - Lawyers must review AI output for errors and verify citations; they remain responsible for their work product whether a human nonlawyer or AI drafted or researched it. - Before inputting client confidences or secrets, review the tool's data retention, sharing and self-learning policies. To use a self-learning tool outside a closed system, fully anonymise inputs unless the client gives informed consent. - AI costs may be billed to a client only with explicit disclosure, within a reasonable time after the representation begins, of the client's liability for the charges and the basis for computing them. Fees must stay reasonable and proportionate to the work actually done, and a lawyer may not bill for learning a tool the lawyer will regularly use for clients unless the client requests or expressly approves that training. - Whether to tell a client about AI use depends on the circumstances; where disclosure is advisable, the engagement letter is the logical place for it. - Lawyers should confirm whether and when any court rule or order requires disclosure of AI use. - Firm leaders should establish an AI policy and ensure supervision (ARPC 5.1, 5.3); the Committee does not specify the policy's content. ## Sources - Alaska Bar Association: [Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law](https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Court Rules index](https://courts.alaska.gov/rules/index.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Supreme Court Orders index](https://courts.alaska.gov/sco/index.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [General Orders and Local Rules](https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/general-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Alaska Court System](https://courts.alaska.gov/shc/AVA/faq.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Alaska Bar Association](https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-topical/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Alaska State Legislature](https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/34?Root=SB%20%202) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 1 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*