--- title: "Nebraska: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/nebraska" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-NE" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Nebraska: AI rules for lawyers > Nebraska: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/nebraska Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://www.ne.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00013081PUB) - [Nebraska Civil Rules (NECivR)](https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2025.pdf) - [Nebraska Civil Rules (NECivR) 2024, rule 7.1(d)(3) and certificate (B)](https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Nebraska in the last 12 months - 2 October 2026 · Dated: [Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (No. S-25-546): fictitious citations from generative AI in a self-represented litigant's brief](#ai-rule-jr-us-ne-shannon-v-shannon) - 20 March 2026 · Dated: [Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (No. S-25-295): fictitious (including AI-generated) authority in an appellate brief](#ai-rule-jr-us-ne-prososki-v-regan) - 1 December 2025 · Dated: [NECivR 7.1(d)(2): Generative Artificial Intelligence (Nebraska Civil Rules, effective December 1, 2025)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ne-dist-court-necivr-7-1-d-2) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (No. S-25-546): fictitious citations from generative AI in a self-represented litigant's brief - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court - Date on page: 2 October 2026 - Effective date: 2 October 2026 - Status: 2 October 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB A Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, not a rule. It follows Prososki v. Regan and extends the same expectation to self-represented litigants: a brief containing misstatements of law or nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, whether the party is represented or not. The court struck the brief and reviewed for plain error, but warned that dismissal of the appeal may follow in future cases. Key points: - Describes Prososki as holding that, regardless of the source, a brief riddled with fabricated citations betrays an attorney's duty of candor and violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. - Notes the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to a self-represented party, but the party is held to the same standard of candor and professionalism as members of the bar. - Self-represented parties will not receive lenience for false representations to the court, whether or not they result from AI. #### Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (No. S-25-295): fictitious (including AI-generated) authority in an appellate brief - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court - Date on page: 20 March 2026 - Effective date: 20 March 2026 - Status: 20 March 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ne.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00013081PUB A Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, not a rule. The court held that filing fictitious authority, whether or not generative AI produced it, is dealt with under the existing Rules of Professional Conduct and court rules. It struck the appellant's brief, dismissed the appeal and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline. It applies to all Nebraska lawyers filing in Nebraska courts. Key points: - Duties engaged: candor to the tribunal (s 3-503.3), competence (s 3-501.1, including the comment on keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology), diligence (s 3-501.3) and non-frivolous claims (s 3-503.1). - The court accepted that failing to adequately review a brief and verify the law can satisfy the 'knowingly' element of the candor duty, and that failing to correct after being alerted showed a lack of candor. - The court said AI must be used with 'caution and humility' and that the duties of candor, competency, diligence and good-faith argument are the same whether or not AI is used. - The opinion does not create a court-wide AI disclosure or certification requirement. #### NECivR 7.1(d)(2): Generative Artificial Intelligence (Nebraska Civil Rules, effective December 1, 2025) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Date on page: 1 December 2025 - Effective date: 1 December 2025 - Status: 1 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2025.pdf A federal local rule for civil cases in the District of Nebraska (federal court sitting in Nebraska, not the state courts). Parties are responsible for the accuracy of their briefing, including quotations and citations, whether or not generative AI drafted any of it. Parties using generative AI must verify the contents of their filings, and an unverified filing may be stricken or sanctioned. Key points: - Refers to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). - Imposes a verification duty on parties using generative AI; this version does not itself require a statement of AI use. - The 2024 rules (in effect from December 1, 2024) said parties were 'expected' to verify and required the brief certificate to state that no generative AI was used or that a human signatory verified all generated text; the 2025 rules dropped that certificate statement, made verification 'required' and added striking or sanctions. - Related brief certificate under 7.1(d)(1) now covers word count only; a material misrepresentation in it may lead to striking or sanctions. - Proposed 2026 amendments (redline posted on the court's local rules page) renumber the provision as 7.1(d)(3) with its text unchanged; check the current rules after December 1, 2026. ## Sources - Nebraska Supreme Court: [Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (No. S-25-546): fictitious citations from generative AI in a self-represented litigant's brief](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Nebraska Supreme Court: [Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (No. S-25-295): fictitious (including AI-generated) authority in an appellate brief](https://www.ne.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00013081PUB) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court for the District of Nebraska: [NECivR 7.1(d)(2): Generative Artificial Intelligence (Nebraska Civil Rules, effective December 1, 2025)](https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Nebraska Civil Rules (NECivR) 2024, rule 7.1(d)(3) and certificate (B)](https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Nebraska Legislature](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/Slip/LB525.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [US District Court, District of Nebraska](https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/NECivR.2026---REDLINE.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 3 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*