Arizona: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Arizona has no court rule or standing order found that requires lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. The Supreme Court's AI committee says the ethical rules do not currently require disclosure to the court, but some courts' own orders may, so check the judge's orders.

You are personally responsible for every citation you file. A published Court of Appeals opinion (15 July 2026) says citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable, lack of intent is no defence, and the duty cannot be offloaded to an AI tool; attorneys and self-represented litigants are held to the same rules.

Do not put confidential client information into an AI tool unless you are satisfied it will not be shared or reused; read the tool's terms.

Tell clients where AI use affects their decision or involves their confidential information; the State Bar says clients should at minimum be informed, and preferably consent.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found (the AI committee says the ethical rules do not currently require it; individual court or judge orders may). Client disclosure/consent: depends — not required for every use, but required where the client needs to know to make an informed decision, and informed consent should be obtained before confidential information goes into a tool that risks disclosure; the State Bar's guidance is firmer (inform at minimum, preferably obtain consent).

  Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges

  Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law in Arizona
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.