Delaware: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

No Delaware court rule or bar rule found that requires lawyers to disclose AI use to a court generally. The Supreme Court's AI policy (the only one found) covers judges and court staff, not practitioners.

In Leiske v. Kidd (2026) the Court of Chancery treated an attorney's signature as a Rule 11(b) certification. It held that the duty of candor and the duty of reasonable inquiry are nondelegable and cannot be discharged by relying on a paralegal or an AI program. Hallucinated legal propositions raised an inference of a Rule 11(b) violation and led to a show-cause order.

The Court of Chancery says using generative AI in court filings is "not inherently problematic" provided the output is carefully verified.

Individual judges can order AI-use certifications in a particular case. In one 2025 Chancery matter a self-represented litigant had to file a certification on generative AI use with future filings, and the court said its certification order was based on a 12 March 2025 Superior Court order by Judge Brennan in Lillard v. Offit Kurman. Check the assigned judge's orders in each matter.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtVaries by court

  Court disclosure: depends. No general rule found; individual judges have ordered case-specific certifications. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found.

  An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW, letter opinion
• Tell the clientUnclear

  Same basis and sources as above.