5 May 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceSupreme Court of GeorgiaLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Georgia: AI rules for lawyers
Georgia, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
The Supreme Court of Georgia says it has "no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys", but citing cases that do not exist, or that do not support the point cited, breaches its Rule 7 and "falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers" (decided 5 May 2026).
Sanctions are real. In the one decision read, the Court admonished the lawyer and her office, suspended her privilege to practise before it for six months, required 12 extra CLE hours (ethics, brief writing, proper use of AI) before reinstatement, and vacated the trial court's order. The Court said this did not affect any State Bar or Judicial Qualifications Commission proceedings.
Client disclosure is not mandated by any rule found, but the Toolkit says lawyers "should obtain informed consent from clients before using generative AI tools that may involve their confidential information" and that clients should be informed of AI use in "specific circumstances".
Courts are being told to scrutinise proposed orders: the Supreme Court "strongly encourage[d] trial courts to carefully review proposed orders" because AI may have been used to prepare them.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. No Georgia court rule or standing order requiring disclosure of AI use was found at the Supreme Court level; the Court said it has no rule against responsible AI use, and the Judicial Council committee found existing court rules "generally sufficient". Local or individual-judge orders were not exhaustively searched. Client disclosure/consent: depends. No binding rule found; the Bar's non-binding Toolkit recommends informed consent where confidential information is involved and transparency about AI use.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Georgia in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
2025-06; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceJudicial Council of Georgia (Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts)Last checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
2026-07-09; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceState Bar of GeorgiaLast checked 31 October 2026
Professional guidanceState Bar of GeorgiaDate not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Supreme Court of Georgia: Payne v. State, S26A0459 (324 Ga. 305): AI-generated fake citations in State's briefs and proposed order · last checked
- Judicial Council of Georgia (Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts): Artificial Intelligence and Georgia's Courts: Findings and Recommendations of the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee · last checked
- State Bar of Georgia: Generative AI Toolkit (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology / Law Practice Management Program) · last checked
- State Bar of Georgia: AI and Emerging Technology (Law Practice Management web page) · last checked
- State Bar of Georgia · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.