--- title: "Idaho: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/idaho" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-ID" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Idaho: AI rules for lawyers > Idaho: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/idaho Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Documents/ISC/Civil/2026/1790088181964-52072.pdf) - [Civil Local Rules and General Orders](https://www.id.uscourts.gov/clerks/rules_orders/Civil_Local_Rules.cfm) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Idaho in the last 12 months - 1 July 2027 · Starts: [Senate Bill 1297, Conversational AI Safety Act (2026)](#ai-rule-jr-us-id-conversational-ai-safety-act-s1297) - 22 September 2026 · Dated: [Posey v. Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (AI-related inaccuracies in appellate briefing)](#ai-rule-jr-us-id-posey-v-bushnell-ai-briefing) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Posey v. Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (AI-related inaccuracies in appellate briefing) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Idaho Supreme Court - Date on page: 22 September 2026 - Effective date: 22 September 2026 - Status: 22 September 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Documents/ISC/Civil/2026/1790088181964-52072.pdf In affirming a defamation judgment, the Court said it was taking the opportunity to address the risks of relying on generative AI and that such reliance is fraught with potential peril. It found the appellant's briefing contained pervasive and egregious inaccuracies suggesting she may have relied on generative AI, and that AI use does not excuse inaccuracies in briefing, whether by attorneys or self-represented litigants. It held that I.A.R. 11.2 obliges all litigants to ensure accuracy and that it had ample authority to sanction, but declined to impose a sanction in that case. Key points: - All litigants, represented or pro se, must ensure the accuracy and validity of arguments under I.A.R. 11.2; signing certifies the filing is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law after reasonable inquiry. - The Court ordered supplemental briefing on why the appeal should not be dismissed as a sanction, citing Grant v. City of Long Beach (9th Cir. 2024). - No sanction was imposed: the respondent requested no attorney fees, nine issues had already been dismissed for briefing deficiencies, and a $1,176,000 judgment plus post-judgment interest already stood. - The Court said the conduct could warrant sanctions under Rule 11.2 and falls below the standard of candor and reasonable inquiry. #### Idaho Judicial Branch AI Governance Implementation, Final Report - Type: Report, research or submission · Report - Issuer: Idaho Judicial Branch (with the National Center for State Courts) - Date on page: August 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: August 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Media_Resources/1792423786957-8.31_Final_AI_Report.pdf Report of a year-long judicial AI governance project (launched September 2025). It records that the Guiding Principles were approved by the Idaho Supreme Court, and attaches a draft Order Establishing the AI Governance Committee (Appendix D) and a draft Internal AI Acceptable Use Policy for judges and court staff (Appendix E). A review of the Judicial Canons concluded that existing canons already provide substantial guidance on AI use. The report says implementation of the committee, policy and roadmap is 'in motion'; the order is unsigned and marked draft, so no new duty on lawyers is in force. Key points: - Draft order would create a standing AI Governance Committee that must submit an initial risk-based project review policy to the Supreme Court within 120 days of its first meeting. - The draft charge includes recommending to the Supreme Court and Idaho State Bar rules for AI use by parties, litigants and attorneys, 'including whether and when disclosure, certification, verification, citation-checking, or other duties should apply to AI-assisted filings or submissions'. - Proposed membership includes the Idaho State Bar's Bar Counsel (or designee), a criminal-law practitioner and a civil practice attorney. - The draft Internal AI Acceptable Use Policy covers judges, court employees and county employees performing court functions. - Pages 1-19 and Appendices D and E (first page) were read; other appendices were not. #### Idaho Judicial Branch Guiding Principles: AI - Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline - Issuer: Idaho Judicial Branch - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Media_Resources/1792423798066-Inserts_AI_Principles.pdf Seven principles (mission alignment, ethical use, independence, transparency, accountability, fairness, empowerment) governing how the Idaho courts themselves may use AI. They require human oversight, protection of confidentiality and data, and that AI never replace judicial judgment. They apply to the judiciary's own use and impose no stated duty on lawyers or litigants. Key points: - AI serves only as a supportive tool and must never replace judicial judgment or decision-making. - AI systems must be documented, validated, tested and transparent; human oversight and final responsibility must be maintained. - The Code of Judicial Conduct applies fully to AI use. ### State bar and regulators #### Board of Commissioners General Session Minutes: Idaho Supreme Court Artificial Intelligence Committee item - Type: Bar statement - Issuer: Idaho State Bar - Date on page: 3 April 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2026-04-03; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/4-3-26-General-Session-Minutes-ADA.pdf The minutes record a report by the Bar's Deputy Director (Jared Hoskins) that the Supreme Court was considering a standing AI governance committee, and that he had worked with the Administrative Office of the Courts on a proposed court order creating it and prescribing its charge. He described this as a pivot toward regulating generative AI use in the courts by attorneys and self-represented litigants, not just judges and court staff, and said the Bar's Executive Director or her designee would be a standing member if it is created. The minutes impose no requirement on lawyers. Key points: - Establishment of the committee was described as potential, not decided. - The later draft order appended to the August 2026 NCSC report lists Bar Counsel (or designee), not the Executive Director, as the Bar's member. - Idaho's ABA delegates mentioned an ABA resolution encouraging competence in generative AI. - Approval status of these minutes was not visible. ### Legislation #### Senate Bill 1297, Conversational AI Safety Act (2026) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Idaho Legislature - Date on page: 1 April 2026 - Effective date: 1 July 2027 - Status: Starts 1 July 2027 (not yet in force) - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/S1297/ Signed by the Governor on 31 March 2026 (session law chapter 249), effective 1 July 2027; adds chapter 21 to title 48, Idaho Code. The amended text regulates operators who make a public-facing conversational AI service available: clear disclosure that the service is AI where reasonable persons would be misled into thinking they are talking to a human, a suicidal-ideation crisis protocol, no claims to provide professional mental health care, and protections for minors, with Attorney General enforcement. It excludes, among others, tools primarily designed for commercial use by business entities, tools used by a business solely for internal purposes, and tools available only under enterprise contracts, so it is unlikely to bind firms using AI internally. Key points: - Civil penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $500,000 per operator, or actual damages, whichever is greater (amended text, s 48-2105). - No private right of action. - Relevance to law firms is limited unless a firm offers a public-facing chatbot; customer-service-only chatbots are also excluded. ## Sources - Idaho Supreme Court: [Posey v. Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (AI-related inaccuracies in appellate briefing)](https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Documents/ISC/Civil/2026/1790088181964-52072.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Idaho Judicial Branch (with the National Center for State Courts): [Idaho Judicial Branch AI Governance Implementation, Final Report](https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Media_Resources/1792423786957-8.31_Final_AI_Report.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Idaho Judicial Branch: [Idaho Judicial Branch Guiding Principles: AI](https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Media_Resources/1792423798066-Inserts_AI_Principles.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Idaho State Bar: [Board of Commissioners General Session Minutes: Idaho Supreme Court Artificial Intelligence Committee item](https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/4-3-26-General-Session-Minutes-ADA.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Idaho Legislature: [Senate Bill 1297, Conversational AI Safety Act (2026)](https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/S1297/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Civil Local Rules and General Orders](https://www.id.uscourts.gov/clerks/rules_orders/Civil_Local_Rules.cfm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [hosted at isb.idaho.gov](https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Legal-Practice.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Idaho Legislature](https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/S1297E1.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 5 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*