1 April 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceArkansas Court of AppealsApril 1, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Arkansas: AI rules for lawyers
Arkansas, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- 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
AI use by lawyers is expressly permitted, but it "does not excuse or mitigate any violation of the rules" that results from using it (Preamble [22], adopted 11 December 2025).
Rule 5.3 is retitled "Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance", and a comment says "nonlawyer assistance" includes generative AI platforms, so the usual supervision and responsibility duties apply to AI tools.
Verify every authority. Filing in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals certifies under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 11(a) that the paper is warranted by existing law. The Supreme Court has found a Rule 11 violation for AI-generated citations that could not be located and called Rule 11 sanctions mandatory.
Administrative Order No. 25 (effective 11 December 2025) tells everyone in the court system to check whether a GAI tool retains what is entered, and warns that disclosing confidential or sealed client or case information may breach the Rules of Professional Conduct, statutes and procedural rules.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. No Arkansas statewide rule, administrative order or Rule 11 amendment requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found, and no federal district or local trial-court order was located. The Supreme Court did order one attorney to disclose AI tools, prompts and uploads in a show-cause affidavit, which is a sanctions process, not a standing duty.
Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. The adopted amendments and Administrative Order No. 25 do not require client disclosure or consent; confidentiality duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct are the relevant constraint.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Arkansas in the last 12 months
- DatedHrdlichka v. Bengtson, No. CV-25-106, 2026 Ark. App. 205: appeal dismissed for briefing deficiencies including fictitious case citations; warning on AI-generated briefs
- DatedArkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2026 Ark. 17: order of reprimand for AI-generated citations
- DatedAdministrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted by per curiam, 2025 Ark. 220)
- DatedAmendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph [22] on non-human assistance (AI) and Rule 5.3 (2025 Ark. 221)
- DatedArkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2025 Ark. 217: show-cause order on possible AI-hallucinated citations
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
5 February 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceSupreme Court of ArkansasFebruary 5, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
11 December 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceSupreme Court of ArkansasDecember 11, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
11 December 2025; start date not confirmedSecondarySupreme Court of ArkansasDecember 11, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
11 December 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceSupreme Court of ArkansasDecember 11, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Consultation, not in forceSecondarySupreme Court of ArkansasJune 5, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Legislation
April 17, 2025; start date not confirmedBinding ruleArkansas General AssemblyApril 17, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
April 21, 2025; start date not confirmedBinding ruleArkansas General AssemblyApril 21, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
9 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.Show all sources
- Arkansas Court of Appeals: Hrdlichka v. Bengtson, No. CV-25-106, 2026 Ark. App. 205: appeal dismissed for briefing deficiencies including fictitious case citations; warning on AI-generated briefs · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas: Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2026 Ark. 17: order of reprimand for AI-generated citations · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas: Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted by per curiam, 2025 Ark. 220) · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas: Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph [22] on non-human assistance (AI) and Rule 5.3 (2025 Ark. 221) · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas: Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2025 Ark. 217: show-cause order on possible AI-hallucinated citations · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas: In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115 (proposed AI amendments published for comment) · last checked
- Arkansas General Assembly: Act 848 of 2025 (HB 1958): public entities to create an AI and automated decision tool policy (Ark. Code Ann. 25-1-128) · last checked
- Arkansas Judiciary · last checked
- Supreme Court of Arkansas · 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.