--- title: "Delaware: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/delaware" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-DE" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Delaware: AI rules for lawyers > Delaware: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/delaware Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Varies 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](https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=377750) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Delaware in the last 12 months - 1 July 2026 · Dated: [Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (LWW): Rule 11 show-cause order on hallucinated citations](#ai-rule-jr-us-de-chancery-leiske-v-kidd-show-cause) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (LWW): Rule 11 show-cause order on hallucinated citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Delaware Court of Chancery - Date on page: July 1, 2026 - Effective date: 1 July 2026 - Status: 1 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=397720 Vice Chancellor Will held that submitting hallucinated legal propositions raises an inference of a Court of Chancery Rule 11(b) violation, so counsel must show cause why sanctions should not issue. The court said an attorney's signature is a certification to the tribunal. The duty of candor and the Rule 11 reasonable-inquiry obligation are nondelegable, and counsel cannot discharge them by relying on a paralegal, 'much less on an artificial intelligence program.' The signing lawyer and the firm were ordered to file affidavits by 15 July 2026. The lawyer's affidavit must cover the timeline of GenAI use, the cite-checking process and the remedial steps. The firm's affidavit must cover its written GenAI policies in effect at the time, how they were communicated, its safeguards and training, and any exceptional circumstances. No sanctions decision was found. Key points: - Using GenAI in preparing court filings is 'not inherently problematic', provided the attorney carefully verifies the output. - Rule 11(c)(1): absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates or employees. - Opposing counsel is justified in bringing false citations directly to the court; there is no need to meet and confer first. - Merely deleting quotation marks while keeping the fabricated legal propositions compounded the problem. #### An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW: letter opinion on apparent generative AI errors in a motion - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Delaware Court of Chancery - Date on page: April 4, 2025 - Effective date: 4 April 2025 - Status: 4 April 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=377750 Vice Chancellor Will found incorrect citations and quotations that do not exist in a self-represented petitioner's motion to compel, and said she suspected generative AI use. The court said GenAI use in legal work is not inherently problematic, but that submitting a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable. Because the petitioner 'doubled down' in reply, the motion was denied with prejudice. The court imposed no sanctions but warned him. Any future filing must include a GenAI-use certification required by a separate 'Order Requiring Certification on Use Of Generative AI' (Dkt. 39), which was not read. The opinion says that order is based on a precedent by Judge Brennan in the Superior Court (Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A., Del. Super. 12 March 2025, ORDER). Key points: - Fictitious citations are sanctionable, though Delaware judges give self-represented parties some latitude. - Future filings by the petitioner must include a GenAI-use certification (case-specific order). - Failure to comply may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, stricken filings or dismissal. #### Order and Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court - Date on page: 21 October 2024 - Effective date: 21 October 2024 - Status: 21 October 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848 The policy covers 'Authorized Users': all judicial branch judicial officers, employees, law clerks, interns, externs and volunteers using generative AI in their official duties and on State technology resources. Lawyers and litigants are outside that scope. Users remain responsible for the accuracy of all work product. They may not delegate their decision-making function to approved tools, and may not put non-public information into non-approved tools. Non-approved tools may not be used on State technology resources. The policy is added as Appendix O-1 to the Judicial Branch Operating Procedures. It was recommended by the Delaware Commission on Law and Technology (DCLT). Key points: - Neither prohibits nor requires generative AI use (court press release, 22 October 2024: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266868). - Users should not use approved tools without a working knowledge of them, and should be trained in their capabilities and limits before use. - The DCLT monitors the policy and reports to the Court when further changes are needed (order paragraph 3). #### Order re the Commission on Law and Technology (expanded mandate) - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court - Date on page: 27 November 2023 - Effective date: 1 September 2023 - Status: 1 September 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=234378 The Court states that Delaware lawyers must competently represent clients and that 'competency includes a level of proficiency in the use of available technology.' It recites that the DCLT was created in August 2013 to give Delaware lawyers guidance and education on technology to help them comply with the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. The DCLT remains an arm of the Court, and its mission is expanded to assessing current and developing technology in Delaware courts and the practice of law. The Court cites the introduction of generative AI as one reason. The order is not itself a rule imposing AI duties on lawyers. Key points: - Recites that competency includes proficiency in the use of available technology (recital a). - Refers to the introduction of generative AI as highlighting the need to address expanding technology use in Delaware legal matters (recital e). - DCLT must report to the Court annually; first report due 1 April 2025 (paragraph 6). - The Commission's own rules (https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=160528, Rule 4) say a lawyer's failure to follow a published guideline or best practice is not admissible for any purpose in a civil action. ## Sources - Delaware Court of Chancery: [Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (LWW): Rule 11 show-cause order on hallucinated citations](https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=397720) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Delaware Supreme Court: [Order and Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel](https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 4 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*