Massachusetts: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

No Massachusetts rule, court order or formal ethics opinion found that specifically regulates lawyers' use of generative AI. Existing duties apply, including competence under Rule 1.1, Comment [8] on the "benefits and risks associated with relevant technology".

You must know whether AI was used in papers you file, and you must verify them. In Smith v. Farwell (Norfolk Superior Court, Feb 12, 2024) the court said all attorneys in Massachusetts courts must, under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7, know whether AI is used in preparing their court papers and make sure AI content is verified before filing. It imposed a $2,000 sanction.

You cannot blame the technology. In Dastou v. Holmes (Middlesex Superior Court, 2025) the court said lawyers "may not blame errors in their work product on the technology". It barred counsel from billing the client for the affected work and ordered an MCLE course.

Protect confidentiality. The BBO staff article advises against entering confidential client information into non-private AI systems, and calls for due diligence on vendors under Rule 1.6.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found. No statewide rule, standing order or form requiring disclosure of AI use in filings was found. The duty to know about and verify AI use under Rules 11 and 7 still applies.

  Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. No binding Massachusetts requirement was found. A BBO staff article (not binding) says that under Rule 1.4 the client should sometimes be consulted about AI use and its risks.

  This depends on the tool and the stakes, and is usually not needed for routine research software.

  Massachusetts law about artificial intelligence

  Smith v. Farwell, No. 2282CV01197, Findings, Rulings and Order Imposing Sanction

  The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (Afton Pavletic, Assistant Bar Counsel)
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.