--- title: "Massachusetts: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/massachusetts" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-MA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Massachusetts: AI rules for lawyers > Massachusetts: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/massachusetts Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-artificial-intelligence) - [Smith v. Farwell, No. 2282CV01197, Findings, Rulings and Order Imposing Sanction](https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/bre49nab9d09oqozl5cftudj25x8gfqh) - [The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (Afton Pavletic, Assistant Bar Counsel)](https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Massachusetts in the last 12 months - 12 November 2025 · Dated: [Interim guidelines for use of Generative AI](#ai-rule-jr-us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Interim guidelines for use of Generative AI - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Date on page: 12 November 2025 - Effective date: 12 November 2025 - Status: 12 November 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai Applies to judges, clerks, registers, recorders, employees, law clerks, interns and contractors of the Massachusetts state courts, not to lawyers or litigants. The general policy is that GenAI may not be used, except in limited situations. It may not be used for legal research, legal writing or other legal work. It may be used for administrative tasks only, only with tools approved by the IT Department, with training and retention opted out, and only with Level 1 (public) information. Outputs must never be the sole source of reference and must always be independently verified. Key points: - Court personnel only; no duty on lawyers or litigants is stated - Approved tools for administrative tasks: OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, with opt-out settings activated - Only Level 1 (public) data may be entered; Levels 2 to 4 must not be entered - Guidelines are interim and will be refined and modified #### Smith v. Farwell, Civil Action No. 2282CV01197: findings, rulings and order imposing sanction for AI-generated fictitious citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Massachusetts Superior Court (Norfolk County) - Date on page: 12 February 2024 - Effective date: 12 February 2024 - Status: 12 February 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/bre49nab9d09oqozl5cftudj25x8gfqh Norfolk Superior Court (Brian A. Davis J.) ordered plaintiff's counsel to pay a $2,000 sanction under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7 for filing oppositions that cited fictitious cases. The papers were drafted by two law graduates not yet admitted and an associate attorney, who admitted using an AI system. Counsel did not know AI had been used and had reviewed the papers only for style, grammar and flow. The court held that not checking the citations, or making sure someone in his office did, breached the Rule 11 duty of reasonable inquiry ('no inquiry is not a reasonable inquiry'). It said all attorneys in Massachusetts courts must know whether AI is used in preparing court papers they file and, if so, make sure AI-generated content is verified before filing. It also said a defence of ignorance will become less credible. Key points: - Duty to know whether AI was used in preparing papers, including by associates and other personnel - Duty to verify AI-generated content before filing, under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and 7 - $2,000 monetary sanction; the court called it mild - Court noted possible breaches of Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 5.1 but based the sanction only on Rules 11 and 7 - The Trial Court Law Libraries page lists the case as Suffolk Superior Court; the opinion caption says Norfolk #### Rules of Professional Conduct (SJC Rule 3:07) Rule 1.1 Comment [8]: maintaining competence, including technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Date on page: 1 October 2022 - Effective date: 1 October 2022 - Status: 1 October 2022; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct-rule-11-competence Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 says that to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, and engage in continuing study and education. It does not mention AI, but it is the technology-competence hook for generative AI use by Massachusetts lawyers. Key points: - Technology competence duty is in Comment [8], not the rule text - No AI-specific wording; applies to AI by extension - Rule adopted 03/26/2015; comment amended effective 10/01/2022 #### Dastou v. Holmes, Civil Action No. 2381CV02212: findings, rulings and order imposing sanctions for generative AI hallucinations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex County) - Date on page: 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/585/Dastou_v._Holmes.pdf Middlesex Superior Court (Keren Goldenberg J.) found that defence counsel's motions in limine and proposed jury instructions contained non-existent cases, a fabricated quotation, misstated holdings and a fictitious legal concept, produced by ChatGPT. Counsel said she had used ChatGPT only to check spelling, grammar and formatting and did not know it could hallucinate. The court said lawyers who use generative technology may not blame errors in their work product on the technology, that any document filed must be thoroughly reviewed, and that lawyers who use generative AI must have a thorough review process. Sanctions: counsel may not bill the client for the affected work and must complete a specified MCLE course within six months. Key points: - Grounded in Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1 (competence) and 3.3 (candor) - Lawyers may not blame errors on the technology - Every filed document must be thoroughly reviewed for accuracy - Sanctions: barred from billing the client for the affected work, plus a mandatory MCLE course - Misuse of generative AI is sanctionable; poor drafting alone is not ### State bar and regulators #### The Wild West of artificial intelligence: Ethical considerations for the use of A.I. in the practice of law (Afton Pavletic, Assistant Bar Counsel) - Type: Regulator guidance - Issuer: Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (Office of Bar Counsel) - Date on page: 2024 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf An educational article by an Assistant Bar Counsel, published on the BBO site. It applies the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct to AI. Rules 1.1 and 1.3 (understand the tool's risks and limits and keep oversight and control). Rule 1.6 (do not enter confidential information into non-private systems, and do due diligence on vendors). Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (firm policies and training on technology use). Rule 1.4 (in some cases the client should be consulted about AI use and its risks, though usually not for routine research tools). Rule 1.5 (tech charges must reasonably reflect cost). Rules 1.8 and 1.9 (conflicts if tools are trained on client data). Rule 4.4(a)(3) (bias). It notes that Massachusetts had no disciplinary decisions on AI at the time of writing. It is not a rule or formal ethics opinion. Key points: - Educational article, not binding - Client consultation on AI use may be needed under Rule 1.4 depending on the tool and the stakes - Do not enter confidential client information into non-private AI systems - Firms should have technology-use policies and training (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) - A 2025 BBO article by Heather L. LaVigne on sanctions for fake cases is listed on the Trial Court Law Libraries page (not read) ## Sources - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: [Interim guidelines for use of Generative AI](https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Massachusetts Superior Court (Norfolk County): [Smith v. Farwell, Civil Action No. 2282CV01197: findings, rulings and order imposing sanction for AI-generated fictitious citations](https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/bre49nab9d09oqozl5cftudj25x8gfqh) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: [Rules of Professional Conduct (SJC Rule 3:07) Rule 1.1 Comment 8: maintaining competence, including technology](https://www.mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct-rule-11-competence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex County): [Dastou v. Holmes, Civil Action No. 2381CV02212: findings, rulings and order imposing sanctions for generative AI hallucinations](https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/585/Dastou_v._Holmes.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (Office of Bar Counsel): [The Wild West of artificial intelligence: Ethical considerations for the use of A.I. in the practice of law (Afton Pavletic, Assistant Bar Counsel)](https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Massachusetts law about artificial intelligence](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-artificial-intelligence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/standing-advisory-committee-on-the-rules-of-professional-conduct) · 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.*