--- title: "Georgia: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/georgia" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-GA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Georgia: AI rules for lawyers > Georgia: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/georgia Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Payne v. State, S26A0459 (324 Ga. 305)](https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/s26a0459.pdf) - [Artificial Intelligence and Georgia's Courts: Findings and Recommendations of the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee](https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Artificial-Intelligence-and-Georgia-Courts.pdf) - [Generative AI Toolkit](https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/lpm/member-resources/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Georgia in the last 12 months - 5 May 2026 · Dated: [Payne v. State, S26A0459 (324 Ga. 305): AI-generated fake citations in State's briefs and proposed order](#ai-rule-jr-us-ga-payne-v-state-ai-citations) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Payne v. State, S26A0459 (324 Ga. 305): AI-generated fake citations in State's briefs and proposed order - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Supreme Court of Georgia - Date on page: 5 May 2026 - Effective date: 5 May 2026 - Status: 5 May 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/s26a0459.pdf A published Supreme Court of Georgia decision applying Supreme Court Rule 7 to AI-assisted filings. The Court said it has no rule against responsible use of AI software by attorneys, but citing non-existent cases or cases that do not support the proposition is a violation of its rules. It admonished the assistant district attorney and her office, suspended her privilege to practise before the Court for six months and vacated the trial court's order. Applies to counsel filing in the Court and, by encouragement, to trial courts reviewing proposed orders. Key points: - Counsel did not independently verify AI-generated citations; the Court treated this as a breach of Supreme Court Rule 7 (filings must be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy). - Reinstatement requires 12 hours of CLE beyond the regular requirement, covering ethics, brief writing and proper use of AI in the legal system. - The Court vacated the order denying a new trial, directed that the new order not be prepared by counsel for either party, and strongly encouraged trial courts to carefully review proposed orders for AI use. - The sanctions are stated to be case-specific and not to affect any State Bar or Judicial Qualifications Commission proceedings. #### Artificial Intelligence and Georgia's Courts: Findings and Recommendations of the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee - Type: Report, research or submission · Report - Issuer: Judicial Council of Georgia (Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts) - Date on page: 2025-06 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2025-06; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Artificial-Intelligence-and-Georgia-Courts.pdf Advisory committee report (prepared with the National Center for State Courts) on AI in Georgia's courts, led by a Supreme Court justice. It finds current court rules generally sufficient for AI, recommends avoiding fully automated decision-making in favour of a human-in-the-loop approach, and proposes a three-year implementation roadmap. It is not a rule and does not itself bind lawyers. Key points: - Committee concluded current court rules are generally sufficient for the use of AI technologies and evidentiary rules need no modification at this time. - Recommends courts avoid fully automated decision-making and use a human-in-the-loop approach, with tiered training for court roles. - Appendix D reproduces the State Bar Special Committee on AI & Technology's final report to the Board of Governors (7 June 2025): it chose a Toolkit instead of a formal advisory opinion, and promoted a proposed comment 6 to GRPC 1.1 (technology competence), an amendment to GRPC 1.6(c) and an amendment to Rule 5.3 to cover AI services, tools and output (for Board consideration in Fall 2025). Adoption status of these proposals was not confirmed. - Recommends leadership and governance, an AI inventory, vendor standards and a three-year roadmap. ### State bar and regulators #### Generative AI Toolkit (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology / Law Practice Management Program) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: State Bar of Georgia - Date on page: 9 July 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2026-07-09; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/lpm/member-resources/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf Non-binding guidance for Georgia lawyers that maps the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct onto generative AI use. It states it is not intended to establish a formal advisory opinion and should not replace ethics opinions, court rulings or the Bar's Ethics Helpline. It says lawyers may ethically use generative AI tools where use does not violate the Rules. Key points: - Rules 1.1 and 3.3: review and vet all AI output; do not assume AI-generated citations are accurate, authentic or citable without independent verification. - Rule 1.6: do not input confidential client information into tools lacking adequate protections; vet vendor terms, anonymise where possible, and obtain informed consent from clients before using tools that may involve their confidential information. - Rules 5.1 and 5.3: lawyers will need policies and training for both lawyers and non-lawyer staff, and remain responsible for ensuring AI output meets professional standards. - Rule 1.5: AI-related efficiency must not lead to unreasonable fees; lawyers must clearly communicate how AI affects fees and should seek informed consent before adopting AI tools that affect billing. #### AI and Emerging Technology (Law Practice Management web page) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: State Bar of Georgia - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.gabar.org/programs/law-practice-management/ai-and-emerging-tech State Bar page summarising how Rules 1.1 and 3.3 apply to AI. It says lawyers must review and vet AI-generated content thoroughly and must not assume AI-generated citations are accurate, authentic or citable without independent verification. It links to the Generative AI Toolkit and the Bar's AI and Emerging Technology Committee. Much of the page text reproduces the Toolkit. Key points: - Rule 1.1: lawyers must review and vet any AI-generated content thoroughly. - Rule 3.3: AI tools are known to generate fabricated legal citations; independent verification is required. - States that AI cannot apply legal reasoning or assume ethical responsibility; that remains the lawyer's role. ## Sources - Supreme Court of Georgia: [Payne v. State, S26A0459 (324 Ga. 305): AI-generated fake citations in State's briefs and proposed order](https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/s26a0459.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Artificial-Intelligence-and-Georgia-Courts.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Georgia: [Generative AI Toolkit (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology / Law Practice Management Program)](https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/lpm/member-resources/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Georgia: [AI and Emerging Technology (Law Practice Management web page)](https://www.gabar.org/programs/law-practice-management/ai-and-emerging-tech) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [State Bar of Georgia](https://www.gabar.org/programs/law-practice-management/ai-and-emerging-tech/ai-additional-resources) · 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.*