Nebraska: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Nebraska has no AI-specific court rule, practice note or bar ethics opinion that I could find. The Nebraska Supreme Court's position comes from two opinions: AI use is governed by the existing Rules of Professional Conduct and court rules.

Verify every citation and quotation before filing. In Prososki v. Regan the court struck an appellate brief, dismissed the appeal and referred counsel for discipline over fictitious authority. It treated failing to adequately verify as enough for the "knowingly" element of the candor duty.

The duties engaged are candor (s 3-503.3), competence (s 3-501.1, including the comment on technology), diligence (s 3-501.3) and non-frivolous claims (s 3-503.1). The court said they apply "whether using AI or not".

In the federal District of Nebraska, civil local rule NECivR 7.1(d)(2) requires parties using generative AI to verify their filings, and unverified filings may be stricken or sanctioned. The rules in effect before 2025-12-01 also required the brief certificate to say whether AI was used; that requirement was dropped.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found. State courts have no AI disclosure or certification rule that I found; the Supreme Court did not impose one in Prososki, and the federal District of Nebraska rule requires verification, not a statement of AI use. (The District's 2024 rules required a certificate stating no AI was used or that a human verified AI-generated text; the 2025 rules removed this.) Client disclosure/consent: no rule found.

  No Nebraska guidance on informing clients about AI use was found; the general duties of competence, communication and confidentiality apply.

  Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38

  Nebraska Civil Rules (NECivR)

  Nebraska Civil Rules (NECivR) 2024, rule 7.1(d)(3) and certificate (B)
• Tell the clientUnclear

  Same basis and sources as above.