Idaho: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

The Idaho Supreme Court has said that using AI "does not excuse inaccuracies in briefing, whether it be used by attorneys or self-represented litigants". Every signer of an appellate brief, represented or not, certifies after reasonable inquiry that it is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law (I.A.R. 11.2). Unverified AI output can therefore attract sanctions.

In that case the Court declined to sanction, but said it had "ample authority" to do so and that the conduct "could warrant sanctions under Rule 11.2". Treat the decision as a warning, not a safe harbour.

The Supreme Court is considering a standing AI governance committee. A draft order (unsigned, appended to the August 2026 report) would create it. The draft charge includes recommending rules on "whether and when disclosure, certification, verification, citation-checking, or other duties should apply to AI-assisted filings".

The judiciary's own AI Guiding Principles (ethics, transparency, accountability, human oversight) apply to the courts' use of AI, not to counsel. They signal the Court's expectations but impose no duty on lawyers.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found. No Idaho Supreme Court order, Idaho court rule or (from the pages read) District of Idaho civil local rule requiring AI disclosure was found; the accuracy and certification duty applies regardless. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. No Idaho State Bar opinion or rule on informing clients about AI use was found as at 2026-10-31.

  Posey v. Bushnell, Docket No. 52072

  Civil Local Rules and General Orders
• Tell the clientUnclear

  Same basis and sources as above.