--- title: "Arkansas: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/arkansas" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-AR" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Arkansas: AI rules for lawyers > Arkansas: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/arkansas Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [In re Adoption of Administrative Order No. 25, Artificial Intelligence, 2025 Ark. 220](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753381/) - [Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward, No. CV-25-758, 2025 Ark. 217 (show-cause order)](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753384/) - [In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 221](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753380/) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Arkansas in the last 12 months - 1 April 2026 · Dated: [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](#ai-rule-jr-us-ar-court-appeals-fictitious-cases-2026-app-205) - 5 February 2026 · Dated: [Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2026 Ark. 17: order of reprimand for AI-generated citations](#ai-rule-jr-us-ar-ark-dhs-reprimand-2026-17) - 11 December 2025 · Dated: [Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted by per curiam, 2025 Ark. 220)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ar-admin-order-25-ai) - 11 December 2025 · Dated: [Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph [22] on non-human assistance (AI) and Rule 5.3 (2025 Ark. 221)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ar-rpc-preamble-22-rule-5-3) - 11 December 2025 · Dated: [Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2025 Ark. 217: show-cause order on possible AI-hallucinated citations](#ai-rule-jr-us-ar-ark-dhs-show-cause-2025-217) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### 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 - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Arkansas Court of Appeals - Date on page: April 1, 2026 - Effective date: 1 April 2026 - Status: 1 April 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/524309/1/document.do The Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal in full for pervasive briefing deficiencies, including citation of multiple cases not found in the Arkansas Reports, the South Western Reporter or any recognised legal database. It said fictitious citations fail Rule 4-2(a)(7) and that Rule 11 requires parties at least to read and confirm the existence and validity of the authorities they rely on. The court then addressed 'a growing and troubling practice': briefs generated in whole or in part with AI tools that contain fabricated or nonexistent citations. It said the use of AI does not relieve a litigant of the duty to verify citations, strongly discouraged pro se appellants and attorneys from submitting AI-generated arguments without thorough verification, and warned that such filings may be struck and sanctions such as dismissal imposed. It does not find that AI produced the citations in this appeal. Key points: - Fictitious citations are treated as a failure to comply with Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 4-2 and as inconsistent with Rule 11; filing them 'for any reason' is a flagrant breach of the duty of candour. - Pro se parties are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. - Responsibility for verifying AI-assisted work 'remains squarely with the party who signs and submits the brief'; filings with fabricated citations may be struck, with sanctions including dismissal. - The court described this as its first opportunity to consider fictitious cases, and noted courts elsewhere are adopting AI disclosure rules; it did not adopt one. #### Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2026 Ark. 17: order of reprimand for AI-generated citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Supreme Court of Arkansas - Date on page: February 5, 2026 - Effective date: 5 February 2026 - Status: 5 February 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://norma-us.lexum.com/ark/supremecourt/en/524154/1/document.do The court found the attorney ad litem, by their own admission, violated Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 11 by filing a response with citations, including a direct quote, to cases that could not be located after using Microsoft Office Copilot. It said Rule 11 sanctions are mandatory once a violation occurs, and approved a written reprimand, the attorney's resignation as ad litem and self-report to the Office of Professional Conduct as the sanction. The court warned that on different facts consequences could include significant fines and potentially suspension or loss of the privilege to practise law in Arkansas. Key points: - First Arkansas Supreme Court sanction for unverified AI-generated authorities found in this research. - The court said the sanction was appropriate given the remedial actions taken voluntarily and harm mitigated by early discovery of the errors; the attorney affirmed she uploaded no sealed juvenile records. - Personal hardship did not excuse filing unverified citations; the court said not filing, seeking an extension or asking other counsel for help were options. #### Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted by per curiam, 2025 Ark. 220) - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Supreme Court of Arkansas - Date on page: December 11, 2025 - Effective date: 11 December 2025 - Status: 11 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753381/ Adopts Administrative Order No. 25 on generative AI and confidential court data. Section 1 tells everyone participating in the court system to check whether a GAI tool retains entered data, and warns that disclosing confidential or sealed client or case information may breach Administrative Order No. 19, Arkansas statutes, the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Procedure. Section 2 prohibits Administrative Office of the Courts staff, court clerks and their staff, and anyone with internal CourtConnect access from intentionally exposing the courts' internal data to a GAI using a public LLM. The order has no filing-disclosure or certification requirement for lawyers. Key points: - Awareness duty applies to 'everyone participating in the court system', which includes lawyers entering client or court data into a GAI tool. - The Section 2 prohibition is aimed at court staff, clerks and CourtConnect users, and covers public (third-party hosted) LLMs; a private LLM deployed and controlled by an organisation is distinguished in Section 1(b). - Anyone subject to the prohibition may seek Automation Committee approval for a research project on generative AI for the courts. - The comment period on the June 2025 proposal (2025 Ark. 117) closed without substantive comments. #### Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph [22] on non-human assistance (AI) and Rule 5.3 (2025 Ark. 221) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Supreme Court of Arkansas - Date on page: December 11, 2025 - Effective date: 11 December 2025 - Status: 11 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753380/ Adds Preamble paragraph [22]: unless otherwise specified nothing in the rules prohibits a lawyer's use of non-human assistance, including AI, but such use does not excuse or mitigate any rule violation that results from it, and lawyers are told to be advised of Administrative Order No. 25 before using AI. Rule 5.3 is retitled 'Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance' and a comment says 'nonlawyer assistance' includes services by human personnel and by technological tools such as generative AI platforms, so the supervision duties in Rule 5.3 extend to AI use. Applies to all Arkansas lawyers. Text read from a public mirror of the per curiam; the proposed text (2025 Ark. 115) was read on the court's own site. Key points: - AI use is permitted; responsibility for resulting rule breaches stays with the lawyer. - Rule 5.3(a)-(c) supervision and responsibility duties apply to AI tools through the new comment. - Preamble [22] points lawyers to Administrative Order No. 25 (confidential and sealed information). - No disclosure, consent or certification requirement is created. Adopted text confirmed on the hallapproved.com mirror (CourtListener data); proposed text in 2025 Ark. 115 confirmed on opinions.arcourts.gov. The generative-AI comment to Rule 5.3 appears only in the adopted version. Confidence kept at medium because the official final per curiam was not located. #### Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward (No. CV-25-758), 2025 Ark. 217: show-cause order on possible AI-hallucinated citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Supreme Court of Arkansas - Date on page: December 11, 2025 - Effective date: 11 December 2025 - Status: 11 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753384/ In a dependency-neglect certiorari matter the court found that an attorney ad litem's brief cited cases that could not be located, with direct quotes from them, and said it was concerned the citations may have been hallucinated by generative AI. It said that filing a brief certifies under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 11(a) that the document is warranted by existing law, so that each citation comes from an existing case, and that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply when using GAI. It ordered the attorney to show cause why a sanction should not be imposed, to submit the full text of every opinion and statute cited, and to file an affidavit on the AI tools, prompts, uploaded documents and how citations were generated. It also raised concern that confidential juvenile information may have been entered into a GAI tool. Key points: - Court expects lawyers to read and confirm every cited authority; it quotes the 'a fake opinion is not existing law' line from a federal decision. - Show-cause affidavit asked for: extent of AI reliance, tools used, prompts, documents uploaded, and how citations were produced. - Footnote cautions that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to GAI use and points to Administrative Order No. 25. #### In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115 (proposed AI amendments published for comment) - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Supreme Court of Arkansas - Date on page: June 5, 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/523724/1/document.do Historical record. The per curiam explains that the Supreme Court Committee on Automation and the Arkansas Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence worked together, that the Task Force unanimously recommended the amendments, and that the Committee on Civil Practice approved them. It published the Preamble paragraph and Rule 5.3 changes for comment. Superseded in effect by the adopted amendments. Key points: - Shows the origin of the amendments: Committee on Automation subcommittee plus the Bar's Task Force on Artificial Intelligence. - Later opinions cite this per curiam as the court putting the Bar 'on notice' about AI. - Treat the adopted text (2025 Ark. 221) as the operative rule. ### Legislation #### Act 848 of 2025 (HB 1958): public entities to create an AI and automated decision tool policy (Ark. Code Ann. 25-1-128) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Arkansas General Assembly - Date on page: April 17, 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: April 17, 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2025R%2FPublic%2F&file=848.pdf&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R Amends Ark. Code Ann. 25-1-128 so that each public entity (state departments, political subdivisions, school districts, institutions of higher education and others listed) must create a policy on authorised use of AI and automated decision tools. The policy must require an authorised human employee or designee to make any final decision, whatever the tool recommends. Entities must also train employees and set disciplinary procedures. It binds government bodies, not private law firms, but is relevant to lawyers advising or acting for those bodies. Key points: - Human final decision-maker required for any AI-recommended decision by a public entity. - State entities' AI policies must be available to the public on request. - Training and a disciplinary procedure are required. #### Act 927 of 2025 (HB 1876): ownership of model training and content generated by a generative AI tool (Ark. Code Ann. 18-4-101) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Arkansas General Assembly - Date on page: April 21, 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: April 21, 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2025R%2FPublic%2F&file=927.pdf&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R General AI statute that is not specific to lawyers. The person who provides the input or directive to a generative AI tool owns the generated content, provided it does not infringe existing copyright or IP rights, and the person who supplies lawfully acquired training data owns the resulting trained model unless ownership was transferred by contract. Where an employee is directed to use a generative AI tool within the scope of employment and under the employer's direction and control, the resulting content and training data belong to the employer. Relevant to law-firm engagement terms and staff policies. Key points: - Employer owns AI-generated content created by employees acting within scope and under the employer's direction. - Ownership does not extend to content that infringes pre-existing copyright or IP rights. - Says nothing about lawyers' ethical duties or court filings. ## Sources 9 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - 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](https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/524309/1/document.do) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://norma-us.lexum.com/ark/supremecourt/en/524154/1/document.do) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Arkansas: [Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted by per curiam, 2025 Ark. 220)](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753381/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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)](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753380/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://hallapproved.com/ar/cases/supreme/2025/10753384/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Arkansas: [In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115 (proposed AI amendments published for comment)](https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/523724/1/document.do) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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)](https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2025R%2FPublic%2F&file=848.pdf&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Arkansas Judiciary](https://norma-us.lexum.com/ark/ao/en/18221/1/document.do) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Supreme Court of Arkansas](https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/523726/1/document.do) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 8 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*