--- title: "Maine: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/maine" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-ME" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Maine: AI rules for lawyers > Maine: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/maine Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers No Maine-specific court rule, standing order or bar ethics opinion on lawyers' use of AI was found on the official sites searched. The general duties (competence, candor, supervision, confidentiality, and Rule 11 or its state equivalent) still apply to AI-assisted work. In the District of Maine, the court treated unverified generative-AI citations as a Rule 11 failure. It said a lawyer who uses such tools "must ensure that every citation and quoted passage has been independently confirmed using reliable legal sources", and that AI use does not reduce the duties of diligence, candor and reasonable inquiry. The same order treated late disclosure of AI use as a candor concern, because counsel first disclosed it only after a show cause order. The order does not create a general disclosure rule. Sanctions in that case were non-monetary: an admonition, a CLE course on generative AI, written firm procedures, a compliance certification within 45 days, and the tainted response struck, with an order to file an amended response. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear Court disclosure: no rule found. No Maine state-court or District of Maine AI disclosure or certification requirement was found, although the D. Me. order treated non-disclosure as relevant to candor in one case. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found; no Maine bar opinion addresses it. - [Order Imposing Sanctions, Fuller v. Hyde School, 2:25-cv-00354-SDN](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.med.68497/gov.uscourts.med.68497.40.0.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Maine in the last 12 months - 5 May 2026 · Dated: [Order Imposing Sanctions, Fuller v. Hyde School, No. 2:25-cv-00354-SDN](#ai-rule-jr-us-me-fuller-hyde-sanctions) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Order Imposing Sanctions, Fuller v. Hyde School, No. 2:25-cv-00354-SDN - Type: Judgment - Issuer: U.S. District Court, District of Maine - 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://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.med.68497/gov.uscourts.med.68497.40.0.pdf A case-specific order sanctioning plaintiff's counsel for two filings containing AI-generated erroneous citations, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court says AI is not inherently improper but every citation and quotation must be independently confirmed, and treats late disclosure of AI use as a candor concern. It is not a rule of general application. Key points: - Sanctions were non-monetary: admonition, CLE course on generative AI, written firm procedures, certification within 45 days, and an order to file an amended response with the original struck from the docket. - Court held AI use does not reduce non-delegable duties of diligence, candor and reasonable inquiry under Rule 11. - Counsel disclosed AI use only after a show cause order; the court said this implicated the duty of candor. - Includes a broader admonition to the Bar to verify and be transparent when using generative AI. #### Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Maine Supreme Judicial Court (published by the Board of Overseers of the Bar) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://mebaroverseers.org/regulation/bar_rules.html?id=87813 Requires competent representation, including legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation. Comment [6] says lawyers should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice and comply with CLE requirements. The page read contains no wording about technology or AI. Key points: - No express technology-competence wording found on the page read; the page may not be current. - The general competence duty is the main hook for verifying AI output. ### State bar and regulators #### Maine Bar Rule 5, Continuing Legal Education - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Board of Overseers of the Bar - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mebaroverseers.org/regulation/bar_rules.html?id=638733 The purpose clause says CLE requirements aim to ensure attorneys remain current on the law, law practice management and technology. It does not mention AI and does not set an AI-specific CLE requirement. Key points: - Technology is named in the stated purpose of CLE. - No AI-specific CLE requirement found. ### Legislation #### LD 1727 (P.L. 2025, c. 294), An Act to Ensure Transparency in Consumer Transactions Involving Artificial Intelligence - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Maine Legislature - Date on page: 12 Jun 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 12 Jun 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1727&PID=1456&snum=132 A general law on AI in consumer transactions, adding a new section to Title 10 of the Maine Revised Statutes. It is not specific to lawyers but may reach any business, including a law firm, that uses AI chatbots with consumers. Its detailed scope was not analysed. Key points: - Enacted and signed 12 June 2025 as Public Law 2025, chapter 294. - Status page lists the new section as 10 M.R.S. 1500-Y. - The state OIT policy (s. 9.3) summarises the law as prohibiting use of an AI chatbot in trade or commerce in a way that may mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking they are dealing with a human, unless the consumer is notified; a violation is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. ### Government and other bodies #### Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Policy - Type: Government policy or guidance · Government guidance - Issuer: Maine Office of Information Technology - Date on page: Latest revision 30 October 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Latest revision 30 October 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://maine.gov/oit/sites/maine.gov.oit/files/inline-files/GenAIPolicy.pdf Sets principles and directives for GenAI use within the Executive Branch of Maine State Government, including personnel and contractors. It does not govern private law firms or courts, but is relevant to lawyers advising or contracting with state agencies. Key points: - Applies to Executive Branch employees and contractors/vendors. - Section 8 requires clear and conspicuous disclosure when an AI chatbot is used in communications with consumers, and s. 9.3 summarises P.L. 2025, ch. 294. ## Sources - U.S. District Court, District of Maine: [Order Imposing Sanctions, Fuller v. Hyde School, No. 2:25-cv-00354-SDN](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.med.68497/gov.uscourts.med.68497.40.0.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Maine Supreme Judicial Court (published by the Board of Overseers of the Bar): [Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence](https://mebaroverseers.org/regulation/bar_rules.html?id=87813) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Maine Legislature: [LD 1727 (P.L. 2025, c. 294), An Act to Ensure Transparency in Consumer Transactions Involving Artificial Intelligence](https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1727&PID=1456&snum=132) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Maine Office of Information Technology: [Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Policy](https://maine.gov/oit/sites/maine.gov.oit/files/inline-files/GenAIPolicy.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.*