--- title: "Arizona: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/arizona" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-AZ" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Arizona: AI rules for lawyers > Arizona: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/arizona Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://www.azbar.org/media/e4chgf0g/aisc-ethical-best-practices-guidance_for-publication.pdf) - [Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law in Arizona](https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/practice-tools-management/practice-2-0/choosing-and-using-technology/best-practices-for-using-artificial-intelligence/) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Arizona in the last 12 months - 27 August 2026 · Dated: [Order denying petition to adopt Rule 135, Rules of the Supreme Court (No. R-26-0020), and related news release](#ai-rule-jr-us-az-asc-order-r260020-no-ai-ban) - 15 July 2026 · Dated: [In re Estate of Acciavatti: Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (published opinion)](#ai-rule-jr-us-az-coa-kotchka-genai-sanctions) - 9 December 2025 · Dated: [Warning: Generative AI may hallucinate citations, result in discipline (news release)](#ai-rule-jr-us-az-statebar-warning-hallucinations-discipline-2025) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Order denying petition to adopt Rule 135, Rules of the Supreme Court (No. R-26-0020), and related news release - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court - Date on page: FILED 08/27/2026 - Effective date: 27 August 2026 - Status: 27 August 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/ASC-R260020%20-%208-27-2026%20-%20FILED%20-%20RULES%20ORDER%20DENYING%20PETITION%20TO%20ADOPT%20RULE%20135,%20RULES%20OF%20THE%20SUPREME%20COURT%20OF%20ARIZONA.pdf The Court denied a petition (filed 12 January 2026 by Court of Appeals Judge Andrew M. Jacobs) to adopt a new Rule 135 and directed the Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts to report by 1 March 2027 on any rules or administrative orders needed to give judicial officers clear, workable standards for AI use. The order concerns judges' use of AI, not lawyers' filings. The Court's news release of the same date says the petition sought a temporary ban on judges using generative AI in core judicial work, and that the Court agreed judges cannot use AI to make legal rulings or other decisions. Key points: - The order itself says judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function and that no tool, AI or otherwise, can substitute for human decision-making or relieve judicial officers of full accountability. - The Steering Committee must report and recommend to the Court on or before 1 March 2027. - Affects judicial officers; it creates no disclosure or certification duty for lawyers. #### In re Estate of Acciavatti: Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (published opinion) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One - Date on page: FILED 07-15-2026 - Effective date: 15 July 2026 - Status: 15 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/1%20CA-CV%2025-0606%20PB%20Dineen%20Shibata%20v%20Kotchka.pdf A published opinion (Furuya J, with Jacobs PJ and Morse J) that addresses generative AI hallucinations because the issue 'has not been squarely addressed by any prior published Arizona authority' (para 11). The court struck the inaccurate and false citations from a self-represented appellant's opening brief (para 9), held his conduct sanctionable under A.R.S. section 12-349, ARCAP 25 and the court's inherent powers (para 26), and as the sanction awarded the appellee the portion of her reasonable attorneys' fees, under A.R.S. section 12-349 and ARCAP 25, incurred due to the hallucinated and misrepresented citations (para 31). It states that attorneys and self-represented litigants are held to the same rules (paras 18, 25). Key points: - Using generative AI is 'not, in and of itself, objectionable' provided the person signing the brief checks that every cited case is real and accurately cited, and that facts are correctly cited to the record (para 12). - Whether attorney or self-represented litigant, all who file documents remain directly and personally responsible for the content, accuracy and quality of their filings; citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable conduct (para 18). - Submission of hallucinated citations, 'intentional or unintentional', is unjustifiable, and a filer may not offload the duty to ensure truth and accuracy to any technological tool (para 25); lack of conscious intent to deceive is no defence (para 26). - The court referred to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11 (para 12) and Rule 11(b)'s reasonable-inquiry requirement (paras 16, 17). #### Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges - Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline - Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court, Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (AISC) - Date on page: November 14, 2024 - Effective date: 14 November 2024 - Status: 14 November 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.azbar.org/media/e4chgf0g/aisc-ethical-best-practices-guidance_for-publication.pdf Guidance issued as 'ethical best practices' by the committee set up by the Arizona Supreme Court, for lawyers and judges using generative AI (the copy read is hosted on the State Bar website). It applies the existing Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (ERs) and Code of Judicial Conduct in seven areas: competence and diligence, confidentiality, communication to clients and supervisors, billing, court disclosure and candor, bias and discrimination, and supervision. Key points: - The ethical rules do not currently require disclosure to the court that AI was used, but certain courts' general, standing and case-specific orders do, and a lawyer asked by a court about AI use may not give a dishonest answer. - Lawyers need not tell clients about every use of AI, but disclosure is required where the client would need to know to make an informed decision, and the client's informed consent should be obtained before inputting confidential or privileged information into a tool posing a risk of disclosure or use by third parties. - Confidential information may not be entered into a tool unless there are sufficient guarantees it will not be shared or used; an hourly-billing lawyer cannot bill for time saved by AI, and plans to bill clients for AI tools must be disclosed in advance and in writing. - Check every material proposition and source, such as statutory or case citations (competence, ER 3.1, ER 3.3); supervisors should consider a written AI policy (ERs 5.1, 5.3). ER 1.1 comment 6 (technology competence) is quoted in footnote 2. #### Court AI guardrails (Ariz. Code Jud. Admin. s 1-509) and judicial technology competence (ACJC Rule 2.5), as described in the Court's news release - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court (Administrative Office of the Courts) - Date on page: Aug. 27, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Aug. 27, 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/News%20Release%20-%20Arizona%20Supreme%20Court%20Declines%20to%20Ban%20AI%20Use%20by%20Judges,%20Will%20Keep%20Testing%20It%20Instead.pdf The Court's news release says two rules came out of the AI steering committee's work: basic guardrails for AI use in the courts (Ariz. Code Jud. Admin. s 1-509, adopted October 2024) and a duty on judges to learn the benefits and risks of technology including AI (Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 81, ACJC Canon 2, Rule 2.5, effective January 2026). Both govern courts and judges, not lawyers. Key points: - Judges may use AI tools the Court has approved and cannot use AI to make legal rulings or other decisions. - Neither rule, as described, imposes a filing disclosure duty on lawyers. - Primary rule texts should be read before relying on them. #### Petition R-26-0053 to amend Rule 45(a)(2), Rules of the Supreme Court (technology CLE hour), filed by the Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (pending) - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court (docket) - Date on page: Case Docket as of 17-Aug-2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/R/R260053.pdf The docket shows the AI steering committee (by its Chair, Hon. Robert M. Brutinel) filed a petition on 10 August 2026 to amend Rule 45(a)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, status 'Pending'. The Court's List of Pending Rule Change Petitions (current as of 25 August 2026) describes it as a proposal to require that one hour of the 15 required CLE hours be devoted to technology relating to legal practice. The petition text itself was not read. Key points: - If adopted, Arizona lawyers would need one hour of technology CLE within their 15 required hours. - Status pending as at 17 August 2026 (docket) and 25 August 2026 (pending list, not yet open for comment); no rule change adopted. - Subject taken from the Court's pending-petitions list: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/20/2026%20Rules/August%202026%20-%20List%20of%20Pending%20Rule%20Change%20Petitions.pdf ### State bar and regulators #### Warning: Generative AI may hallucinate citations, result in discipline (news release) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: State Bar of Arizona - Date on page: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 12-9-2025 - Effective date: 9 December 2025 - Status: 9 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.azbar.org/news-publications/news-releases-articles/warning-generative-ai-may-hallucinate-citations-result-in-discipline/ A State Bar news release warning lawyers that filing AI-hallucinated citations may lead to disciplinary action by the State Bar, noting that several such cases have already reached the Bar. It names no lawyer, case or sanction and cites no rule; it points lawyers to the Bar's AI best-practices guidance. Key points: - Hallucinated-citation conduct 'may lead to disciplinary action by the State Bar of Arizona'. - 'Several cases have already made their way to the Bar' (no details given). - Lawyers must exercise caution, critical analysis and independent judgment when integrating AI into practice. #### Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law in Arizona (with 'common ethical pitfalls' checklist) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: State Bar of Arizona - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/practice-tools-management/practice-2-0/choosing-and-using-technology/best-practices-for-using-artificial-intelligence/ Practical guidance from the State Bar tying generative AI use to the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 42) and Supreme Court rules. It covers confidentiality, competence and diligence, supervision, client communication, fees, candor to the tribunal and bias. It describes itself as practical guidance, not a formal ethics opinion. Key points: - Do not enter confidential client information into generative AI platforms unless adequate safeguards are in place; review the tool's terms to ensure it does not share input data with third parties. - Independently verify all AI-generated citations, arguments and factual statements before submitting them to a court or administrative body. - Clients should at a minimum be informed about, and preferably consent to, generative AI use whenever it impacts their representation; lawyers must inform clients and obtain consent whenever a meeting will be recorded. - Lawyers may charge for crafting and refining AI inputs and outputs, but in hourly matters not more than the time actually spent; AI-related costs should be clearly disclosed in fee agreements. - Stay apprised of local rules and individual courts' or judges' requirements on generative AI, including disclosure rules and rules that may prohibit AI use altogether. ## Sources - Arizona Supreme Court: [Order denying petition to adopt Rule 135, Rules of the Supreme Court (No. R-26-0020), and related news release](https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/ASC-R260020%20-%208-27-2026%20-%20FILED%20-%20RULES%20ORDER%20DENYING%20PETITION%20TO%20ADOPT%20RULE%20135,%20RULES%20OF%20THE%20SUPREME%20COURT%20OF%20ARIZONA.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One: [In re Estate of Acciavatti: Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (published opinion)](https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/1%20CA-CV%2025-0606%20PB%20Dineen%20Shibata%20v%20Kotchka.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Arizona Supreme Court, Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (AISC): [Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges](https://www.azbar.org/media/e4chgf0g/aisc-ethical-best-practices-guidance_for-publication.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Arizona Supreme Court (Administrative Office of the Courts): [Court AI guardrails (Ariz. Code Jud. Admin. s 1-509) and judicial technology competence (ACJC Rule 2.5), as described in the Court's news release](https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/News%20Release%20-%20Arizona%20Supreme%20Court%20Declines%20to%20Ban%20AI%20Use%20by%20Judges,%20Will%20Keep%20Testing%20It%20Instead.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Arizona Supreme Court (docket): [Petition R-26-0053 to amend Rule 45(a)(2), Rules of the Supreme Court (technology CLE hour), filed by the Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (pending)](https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/R/R260053.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Arizona: [Warning: Generative AI may hallucinate citations, result in discipline (news release)](https://www.azbar.org/news-publications/news-releases-articles/warning-generative-ai-may-hallucinate-citations-result-in-discipline/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Arizona: [Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law in Arizona (with 'common ethical pitfalls' checklist)](https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/practice-tools-management/practice-2-0/choosing-and-using-technology/best-practices-for-using-artificial-intelligence/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Arizona Supreme Court](https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/20/2026%20Rules/August%202026%20-%20List%20of%20Pending%20Rule%20Change%20Petitions.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 7 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*