Louisiana: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Louisiana has a statute aimed squarely at AI-generated evidence: Code of Civil Procedure Art. 371 (as amended by Act 250 of 2025, effective 1 August 2025) bars knowingly offering false evidence, including evidence "artificially generated or altered by any means", and requires reasonable diligence to verify authenticity before offering evidence to the court.

If you knew or should have known that evidence was false or artificially manipulated, offering it without disclosing that fact is a violation; the sanction is contempt plus any other discipline provided by law.

If you reasonably suspect an opponent's exhibits are falsified, including generated by AI or altered by any means, you must raise it at the pretrial conference or a pretrial admissibility hearing. If you know or have reason to know your own exhibits are falsified, you must disclose it under Art. 371. These duties do not apply to demonstrative exhibits.

The Supreme Court's Technology Commission guidelines (3 October 2025) are expressly non-binding and aimed mainly at judges, but they say lawyers are responsible for accuracy of material put to the court and that courts may need to remind lawyers to independently verify GenAI-assisted research and citations.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtVaries by court

  Court disclosure: depends — no general AI-use disclosure rule found; Art. 371(C) requires disclosure only where you offer evidence you knew or should have known was false or artificially manipulated, and Art. 1551(A)(5)(b) requires the same disclosure for exhibits you know or have reason to know were AI-generated or altered. Individual judges' standing orders were not searched exhaustively. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found.

  Act No. 250 (HB 178), 2025 Regular Session, enrolled text and bill status
• Tell the clientUnclear

  Same basis and sources as above.