--- title: "Colorado: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/colorado" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-CO" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Colorado: AI rules for lawyers > Colorado: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/colorado Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers Colorado has amended its Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule Change 2026(02), adopted 8 January 2026, effective immediately): a lawyer who uses technology, including AI, may be disciplined for a resulting rule violation. Rule 1.1 Comment [8] now ties competence to knowing the benefits and risks of relevant technology; new Comment [9] flags Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1 and 8.4(g) as engaged by AI use, and says reliance on technology does not displace independent judgment. Verify every citation. The Court of Appeals has warned lawyers and self-represented parties that future filings with generative-AI hallucinations may be sanctioned, and a lawyer was suspended in 2023 after filing unverified ChatGPT-sourced citations and then falsely blaming an intern. In federal court, check the assigned judge's orders: some D. Colo. judges require an AI certification in every filing (for example, Judge Wang's order, effective 1 December 2025). As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: depends — no statewide Colorado state-court rule found; some federal D. Colo. judges require a certification of AI use or non-use. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found — the amended Rules name Rule 1.4 (communication) as potentially engaged by AI use but impose no express disclosure or consent duty. (Judge Wang's sample certification includes a statement that the client was advised of and consented to AI use, but it is given "for illustrative purposes only".) - [Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative AI in Court Filings (Judge Wang)](https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf) - [Rule Change 2026(02), Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct](https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026%2802%29.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Colorado in the last 12 months - 1 January 2027 · Dated: [SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (repeals and reenacts SB24-205)](#ai-rule-jr-us-co-sb26-189-admt) - 8 January 2026 · Dated: [Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope (new [20A]) and Rule 1.1 (Comment [8] amended, Comment [9] added)](#ai-rule-jr-us-co-scotus-rpc-ai-amendments-2026) - 1 December 2025 · Dated: [Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings](#ai-rule-jr-us-co-dcolo-wang-ai-standing-order) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Legal Technology Advisory Committee (established 2025): drafting guidance on technology and AI use - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court Legal Technology Advisory Committee - Date on page: 1 October 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/legal-technology-advisory-committee A standing committee of the Colorado Supreme Court is charged with drafting and recommending guidance on technology, including AI, for attorneys, licensed legal paraprofessionals, other legal professionals, judicial officers and members of the public. Its page lists meetings through 1 October 2026 and subcommittee reports on legal professionals and self-represented litigants, but no published final guidance was found. This is a pending-guidance signal only; it imposes no obligations. Key points: - Charged with drafting guidance on technology, including AI, for lawyers, judicial officers and the public. - Meeting materials posted through 1 October 2026; no final guidance located. - Check the page for later publication. #### Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope (new [20A]) and Rule 1.1 (Comment [8] amended, Comment [9] added) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court - Date on page: 8 January 2026 - Effective date: 8 January 2026 - Status: 8 January 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026%2802%29.pdf The Court added AI-specific language to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. New Scope [20A] says technology, including AI, does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities and that a lawyer who uses technology in delivering legal services may be subject to discipline for a resulting violation. Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 now refers to the benefits and risks of relevant technology, and new Comment [9] lists rules AI use can implicate. It applies to all Colorado-licensed lawyers. Key points: - Scope [20A]: a lawyer who uses technology (including AI), directly or indirectly, in performing or delivering legal services may be subject to discipline for a resulting violation of the Rules. - Rule 1.1 Comment [8]: to maintain competence a lawyer should keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. - Rule 1.1 Comment [9]: AI use can implicate, without limitation, Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1 and 8.4(g). - Comment [9]: reliance on technology does not diminish the lawyer's duty to exercise independent judgment. - The text imposes no express disclosure or consent requirement for AI use. #### Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court, District of Colorado (Judge Nina Y. Wang) - Date on page: 1 December 2025 - Effective date: 1 December 2025 - Status: 1 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf Every filing before this judge must contain a signed AI Certification stating whether generative AI was used in preparing it. If it was, each signer certifies that AI-drafted language was reviewed by a human for accuracy and that all legal citations are to real authority. Non-compliant filings may be stricken with leave to re-file. This is a federal chambers order, not a Colorado state court rule. Key points: - Certification of use or non-use of generative AI required in every filing, signed by all who contributed to drafting. - If used: human review for accuracy and confirmation that cited authority exists. - Non-compliant filings may be stricken with leave to re-file. - Filings remain subject to FRCP 11, 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and ethical rules. #### Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (published opinion on AI-generated fictitious citations) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Colorado Court of Appeals - Date on page: 26 December 2024 - Effective date: 26 December 2024 - Status: 26 December 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/2024/24ca0190.html A division of the Court of Appeals considered the appropriate sanction where a self-represented appellant filed a brief containing fictitious citations generated by generative AI. It declined to sanction the appellant on the facts, but put lawyers and self-represented parties on notice that future filings containing generative-AI hallucinations may result in sanctions. This is a judicial decision, not a rule, and the text read is a Justia copy of the opinion (the court's own copy sits in its 26 December 2024 announcements PDF). Key points: - Published Colorado appellate opinion on hallucinated citations (Court of Appeals No. 24CA0190). - No sanction imposed on the self-represented appellant in this case. - Court's stated warning (opinion para. 41): future filings with generative-AI hallucinations may result in sanctions, for lawyers and self-represented parties alike. ### State bar and regulators #### People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067: Stipulation to Discipline (approved 22 November 2023) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court - Date on page: 22 November 2023 - Effective date: 22 November 2023 - Status: 22 November 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a stipulated discipline of one year and one day, with ninety days to be served and the rest stayed on successful completion of two years' probation with conditions. The lawyer cited case law found through ChatGPT in a motion without reading or verifying it, did not alert the court or withdraw the motion after discovering the cases were incorrect or fictitious, and falsely blamed a legal intern when the judge raised concerns. The decision records violations of Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). Key points: - Sanction: suspension for one year and one day, ninety days to be served, remainder stayed on two years' probation; effective 22 November 2023. - Facts: ChatGPT-sourced citations were not read or verified; incorrect or fictitious cases were not disclosed to the court once discovered; the lawyer falsely attributed the errors to a legal intern. - Rules found violated: Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c). - A disciplinary outcome in an individual matter, not a general rule. ### Legislation #### SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (repeals and reenacts SB24-205) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Colorado General Assembly - Date on page: 14 May 2026 - Effective date: 1 January 2027 - Status: 1 January 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189 General AI statute that repeals and reenacts the 2024 Colorado AI Act, replacing it with requirements on developers and deployers of automated decision-making technology used in consequential decisions (education, employment, housing, financial or lending, insurance, health care, essential government services). It does not mention lawyers or courts. It could affect a law firm only as a deployer using such technology in those decisions (for example employment screening) or as adviser to clients. Enforced by the Attorney General; 60-day cure notice before 1 January 2030. Key points: - Developer documentation duties start 1 January 2027; Attorney General rules on post-adverse-outcome disclosure due by 1 January 2027. - Deployers must give consumer notice and plain-language explanation of adverse outcomes; consumers may request human review. - Enforced by the Attorney General as a deceptive trade practice; no new private right of action. - Not directed at legal practice; relevant to firms as deployers or when advising clients. Signed and enacted on 14 May 2026. The Colorado Attorney General's page states: "This new law and its provisions go into effect January 1, 2027" (https://coag.gov/ai/). The effective date shown is the date the duties apply. ## Sources - Colorado Supreme Court Legal Technology Advisory Committee: [Legal Technology Advisory Committee (established 2025): drafting guidance on technology and AI use](https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/legal-technology-advisory-committee) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Colorado Supreme Court: [Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope (new 20A) and Rule 1.1 (Comment 8 amended, Comment 9 added)](https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026%2802%29.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court, District of Colorado (Judge Nina Y. Wang): [Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings](https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Colorado Court of Appeals: [Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (published opinion on AI-generated fictitious citations)](https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/2024/24ca0190.html) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court: [People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067: Stipulation to Discipline (approved 22 November 2023)](https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Colorado General Assembly: [SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (repeals and reenacts SB24-205)](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 6 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*