--- title: "District of Columbia: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/district-of-columbia" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-DC" kind: "district" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # District of Columbia: AI rules for lawyers > District of Columbia: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/district-of-columbia Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388 (published April 2024) is the main D.C. guidance: competence means understanding enough about generative AI to be reasonably confident it will help the client, and AI output is not a substitute for ordinary fact- and cite-checking. Do not put client confidences or secrets into a generative AI tool unless satisfied (by privacy terms or negotiated terms) that the provider will not see them or reveal them to later users; the opinion warns that anonymising may not be enough and that clients typically should not be asked to consent to wide-ranging disclosure. Candor and fees: fake or false citations engage Rule 3.3; breaching a tribunal's AI order engages Rule 3.4(c); hourly-fee lawyers may bill only time actually spent, and AI costs can be passed through only as agreed expenses. The D.C. Court of Appeals amended the Rules of Professional Conduct by order filed 7 April 2025, effective 6 May 2025. The amendments include Rule 1.1 Comment [5] (duty to stay abreast of technological changes), Rule 1.6 (protecting client information), and the Rule 1.1 and 5.3 comments on outsourcing. Read the amended Comment [5] wording before relying on it. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear Court disclosure: no rule found (general D.C. rule). Opinion 388 refers to tribunals that require disclosure of AI use but names no D.C. rule imposing it; individual judge orders could not be checked. Client disclosure/consent: depends. Opinion 388 requires informed client consent before confidential information is shared with an AI provider that would expose it, and says an expected out-of-pocket AI cost that will be billed should be communicated under Rule 1.5(b). It does not state a general duty to tell clients about AI use. - [Ethics Opinion 388](https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in District of Columbia in the last 12 months No new or changed AI rules recorded for District of Columbia in the last 12 months. ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### D.C. Courts AI Task Force and internal AI Use Policy (as described in Washington Lawyer, May/June 2026) - Type: Court policy - Issuer: District of Columbia Courts (Artificial Intelligence Task Force) - Date on page: 2026-05 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2026-05; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.dcbar.org/news-events/publications/washington-lawyer-articles/guardrails-first-inside-the-d-c-courts-measured-ap A D.C. Bar magazine article (Washington Lawyer, May/June 2026) reports that the D.C. Courts formed an AI Task Force in March 2024, released an AI Strategic Planning Roadmap in June 2025 and an internal AI Use Policy in July 2025. The policy is described as governing court users, quoting that users may not delegate decision-making to any AI tool and remain responsible for reviewing AI-derived work product. The article does not describe any disclosure or certification duty for lawyers or litigants filing in D.C. courts. Key points: - Internal policy for court judicial officers and staff, as described; not stated to bind lawyers. - The article quotes the policy: users may not delegate decision-making responsibilities to any AI tool. - No lawyer or litigant filing requirement is described. - Primary court documents on dccourts.gov could not be fetched (HTTP 403) and were not read. Confirmed 2026-10-31 against the Washington Lawyer article text: task force formed by administrative order in March 2024; roadmap June 2025; use policy July 2025; quotations match; no lawyer filing duty described. Confidence left low because the policy itself was not read. #### Order No. M284-24 amending D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.8, 4.4 and 5.3 (filed 7 April 2025; effective 6 May 2025) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: District of Columbia Court of Appeals - Date on page: 7 April 2025 - Effective date: 6 May 2025 - Status: 6 May 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.dcbar.org/getmedia/e148273f-5836-4a23-8a9b-8a8280a6adad/No-284_24-ORDER_-Effective-date-of-Order-approving-proposed-changes-to-Rules-of-Professional_04242025 By order No. M284-24 filed 7 April 2025, the D.C. Court of Appeals largely adopted D.C. Bar proposals amending the Rules of Professional Conduct. These include an amendment to Comment [5] to Rule 1.1 (Competence) on the duty to stay abreast of technological changes; amendments to Rule 1.6 and its comments on the duty to protect client information (the D.C. Bar reports changes to subsection (f) and Comment [40] on reasonable care against unauthorised access to electronic information); amendments to Rule 4.4 on inadvertently sent information; comment amendments to Rules 1.1 and 5.3 on outsourcing legal work; and revisions to Rule 3.8. A further order filed 24 April 2025 set the effective date as 6 May 2025. The pages read do not mention AI by name. Key points: - Rule 1.1 Comment [5] now addresses the duty to stay abreast of technological changes (adopted as proposed by the Bar); the amended comment wording was not read. - Rule 1.6 and its comments amended on the duty to protect client information (the D.C. Bar reports changes to subsection (f) and Comment [40] on electronic information). - Rule 5.3 and Rule 1.1 comments amended on outsourcing legal work to nonlawyers and to lawyers outside the firm. - Effective 6 May 2025 (order filed 24 April 2025). ### State bar and regulators #### Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: District of Columbia Bar - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 10 October 2026 - URL: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388 - Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in District of Columbia. Addresses candor to tribunals, compliance with court AI orders (Rule 3.4(c)) and reasonable fees (Rule 1.5) when using GenAI. ## Sources - District of Columbia Courts (Artificial Intelligence Task Force): [D.C. Courts AI Task Force and internal AI Use Policy (as described in Washington Lawyer, May/June 2026)](https://www.dcbar.org/news-events/publications/washington-lawyer-articles/guardrails-first-inside-the-d-c-courts-measured-ap) · last checked 31 October 2026 - District of Columbia Court of Appeals: [Order No. M284-24 amending D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.8, 4.4 and 5.3 (filed 7 April 2025; effective 6 May 2025)](https://www.dcbar.org/getmedia/e148273f-5836-4a23-8a9b-8a8280a6adad/No-284_24-ORDER_-Effective-date-of-Order-approving-proposed-changes-to-Rules-of-Professional_04242025) · last checked 31 October 2026 - District of Columbia Bar: [Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters](https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: District - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 3 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*