17 December 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceHawai‘i Supreme CourtDecember 17, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Hawaii: AI rules for lawyers
Hawaii, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- 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
No Hawaii statute, court rule or Supreme Court order specific to lawyers' use of AI was found. In the AI committee's final report, its Ethics Subcommittee found the existing Hawai‘i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) and Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 11 sufficient and "adequate", proposed no rule changes "at this time" and recommended a "wait and see" approach.
Treat the HRPC as fully applicable to AI use. The Chief Justice's January 2025 letter to the Hawai‘i State Bar Association (HSBA) lists HRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 5.3 and HRCP 11 and 37 as the rules attorneys using AI should know, and says these obligations are "currently broad enough" to govern AI use.
Verify every citation and authority before filing. The committee says HRCP 11 and 26(g) already address the main risk of an attorney failing to understand AI's limits, and that the lawyer must supervise AI output as if it were a law clerk or new associate.
A court-wide AI disclosure declaration for state court filings has been proposed but, as far as could be found, has not been adopted. The committee's final report (15 Dec 2025) says it is "under consideration" by the Supreme Court. Check for a later order before filing.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtVaries by court
Court disclosure: depends. No state-court rule found requiring it; a proposed state declaration is under consideration; one federal judge in D. Haw. requires it. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. The committee says attorneys "should discuss" potential GAI use with clients and "obtain client consent" before using it on a matter, and must comply with a client's request for disclosure, but this is committee commentary, not an adopted rule.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Hawaii in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
15 December 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceCommittee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, Hawai‘i Supreme CourtDecember 15, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
SecondaryU.S. District Court, District of Hawai‘i (Chambers of U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Hawai‘i Supreme Court: Order Continuing the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (SCMF-24-0000305) · last checked
- Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, Hawai‘i Supreme Court: Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts' Final Report to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court (SCMF-24-0000305) · last checked
- U.S. District Court, District of Hawai‘i (Chambers of U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi): Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence (Chambers of Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi) · last checked
- Hawai‘i State Bar Association · last checked
- Disciplinary Board of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court / Office of Disciplinary Counsel · 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.