---
title: "Nevada: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/nevada"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-NV"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# Nevada: AI rules for lawyers
> Nevada: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/nevada
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## What this means for lawyers
Nevada has no statewide court rule on AI, and the State Bar has no formal ethics opinion on AI. The latest opinion on the State Bar's index is No. 61 (18 February 2025), on the no-contact rule.
The Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct apply on their own terms. NRPC 1.1 has no technology-competence comment, but ABA comments may be consulted for guidance under NRPC 1.0A.
In the District of Nevada, Magistrate Judge Couvillier's standing order (effective 17 August 2026) covers all civil cases assigned to him. Any filing with AI-generated content must carry a set certification above the signature line, and leaving it out may be sanctioned. Unchecked AI citations are grounds for sanctions.
The State Bar President's September 2026 column says expressly that it is not formal ethics guidance. It links AI use to NRPC 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3: verify citations before filing, check tool terms before entering client data, supervise staff, adopt firm AI policies and check AI-generated billing.
As at 31 October 2026.
## Telling the court and the client
**Tell the court:** Varies by court
Court disclosure: Yes in civil cases before D. Nev. Magistrate Judge Couvillier, where a certification of AI use is mandatory. No statewide or court-wide rule was found, but this run did not fully review D. Nev. general orders or state district court orders. Client disclosure/consent: no Nevada rule or opinion requires it. The State Bar President's column is about confidentiality and terms-of-service diligence (NRPC 1.6), not client consent.
- [Standing order](https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf)
- [Bar magazine column (not formal guidance)](https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_September2026_PresidentsMessage_AI_LawUtilization.pdf)
**Tell the client:** Unclear
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## What changed in Nevada in the last 12 months
- 17 August 2026 · Dated: [Second Amended Standing Order & Chambers Practices of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, Part III: Artificial Intelligence (AI)](#ai-rule-jr-us-nv-us-nv-dnev-couvillier-standing-order-ai)
## AI instruments
### Courts and tribunals
#### Second Amended Standing Order & Chambers Practices of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, Part III: Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Type: Court rule or order · Standing order
- Issuer: United States District Court, District of Nevada (Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III)
- Date on page: 17 August 2026
- Effective date: 17 August 2026
- Status: 17 August 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf
A chambers standing order for all civil cases assigned to Magistrate Judge Couvillier in the District of Nevada. It applies to that judge's cases only, not court-wide. Counsel and parties may use AI to draft documents or process discovery, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Any brief, motion, pleading or similar filing that includes AI-generated or AI-drafted content must carry a set certification above the signature line. Failing to check AI-sourced citations is grounds for sanctions. Uploading sealed filings, or filings containing personal-data identifiers, to an open AI system is prohibited.
Key points:
- Certification required above the signature line on any filing with AI-generated or AI-drafted content: 'I certify that artificial intelligence was used to generate a portion of this filing. I have reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content in the filing is accurate and complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations.' Leaving it out may result in sanctions.
- Failing to confirm the accuracy or existence of any citation or factual assertion obtained from or created by an AI tool is grounds for sanctions; all citations must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and LR IA 7-3.
- Parties are strongly encouraged to address AI in proposed protective orders, including closed vs open AI systems and limits on processing discovery material that contains personal-data identifiers, confidential material or trade secrets.
- Do not upload to any open AI system filed documents that are sealed or that contain personal-data identifiers listed in LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(6); violation may result in sanctions.
- Applies to pro se parties as well as counsel.
#### Nevada GenAI Materials: District Court Judges Seminar & Family Law Conference, April 16-17, 2025
- Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline
- Issuer: National Center for State Courts, Center for Judicial Ethics (David J. Sachar), for the Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts
- Date on page: 16 April 2025
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: 2025-04-16; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/47208/Nevada_GenAI_Materials.pdf
Seminar notes prepared by the NCSC's Center for Judicial Ethics for a Nevada judges' conference. They cover court uses of generative AI, benefits and risks (including hallucinations and the need for human supervision), ABA Resolution 112 (2019), and steps for courts adopting AI. This is judicial education material, not a Nevada rule or policy, and it imposes no duties on lawyers.
Key points:
- Educational material for judges; not a court rule, order or policy.
- Notes reliability concerns: AI requires human supervision and can hallucinate.
- Recommends courts start with low-risk tasks, check tool terms of use, and train staff and judges.
#### Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.0A (interpretation) and Rule 1.1 (competence)
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Supreme Court of Nevada (Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, published by the Nevada Legislature)
- Date on page: 1 May 2006
- Effective date: 1 May 2006
- Status: 1 May 2006; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/rpc.html
Nevada's professional conduct rules contain no AI-specific provision. NRPC 1.1 is black-letter text only: competent representation needs the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary. Nevada has not enacted a technology-competence comment. NRPC 1.0A says the ABA Model Rules' preamble and comments are not enacted but may be consulted for guidance in interpreting the Nevada rules, unless they conflict with them.
Key points:
- NRPC 1.1 contains no reference to technology; the Nevada rules text contains no mention of technology at all.
- Under NRPC 1.0A, ABA comments (including ABA Model Rule 1.1 comment [8] on technology) may be consulted for guidance but are not enacted.
- The general duties (competence 1.1, communication 1.4, fees 1.5, confidentiality 1.6, candour 3.3, supervision 5.1/5.3) are the operative framework for AI use.
#### Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Judicial Officers
- Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline
- Issuer: Nevada Judiciary (published on nvcourts.gov)
- Date on page: Not stated
- Effective date: Not stated
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/46693/AI_Guide_for_Judicial_Officers.pdf
A short educational guide for Nevada judicial officers, not binding on lawyers. It advises using AI only as a supplement to human judgment and verifying AI output against authoritative sources. It warns that AI can produce fabricated legal citations and deepfake evidence, and says not to enter confidential or sensitive information into tools like ChatGPT.
Key points:
- Use AI as a supplementary tool, not a replacement for human judgment; verify outputs against established legal standards.
- Watch for hallucinations, 'such as fabricated legal citations', and verify with authoritative sources.
- Flags deepfakes as a threat to evidence authenticity.
- Do not enter protected health information, passwords or other confidential data into generative AI tools.
- Addressed to judges; imposes no duties on lawyers.
### State bar and regulators
#### President's Message: Navigating AI with Competence and Care (Nevada Lawyer, September 2026, p. 4)
- Type: Bar statement
- Issuer: State Bar of Nevada (Catherine Mazzeo, President), Nevada Lawyer magazine
- Date on page: 2026-09
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: 2026-09; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_September2026_PresidentsMessage_AI_LawUtilization.pdf
A column by the State Bar of Nevada President. It maps common AI uses to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct in a reference table, and says expressly that the table is not exhaustive and is not formal ethics guidance. It describes a recent Washoe County case: the Second Judicial District Court sanctioned two Cozen O'Connor attorneys over a brief with at least 14 fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT. Lawyers are referred to the State Bar's Office of Bar Counsel for advice on their own circumstances.
Key points:
- States expressly that the table 'is not formal ethics guidance'; it is illustrative and not exhaustive.
- Rule 1.1 (competence): understand an AI tool's capabilities and limits before using it, and keep current on AI developments.
- Rules 1.1 and 3.3 (candour): verify AI-generated citations, case summaries and factual assertions before filing.
- Rule 1.6 (confidentiality): review the tool's terms of service and data handling, and do not enter confidential client information without understanding how the data is used, shared or stored.
- Rules 5.1 and 5.3: supervise associates, paralegals and staff who use AI, and set firm AI policies.
- Rule 2.1: AI-assisted work must reflect independent judgment. Rule 1.5: check AI-generated fee calculations and billing entries.
- Washoe County example: two attorneys sanctioned by the Second Judicial District Court for a brief with at least 14 fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT (cross-reference: 'Avoiding AI Hallucinations: Lessons from a Local Case', Nevada Lawyer, January 2026, p. 42).
## Sources
- United States District Court, District of Nevada (Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III): [Second Amended Standing Order & Chambers Practices of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, Part III: Artificial Intelligence (AI)](https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- National Center for State Courts, Center for Judicial Ethics (David J. Sachar), for the Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts: [Nevada GenAI Materials: District Court Judges Seminar & Family Law Conference, April 16-17, 2025](https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/47208/Nevada_GenAI_Materials.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Supreme Court of Nevada (Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, published by the Nevada Legislature): [Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.0A (interpretation) and Rule 1.1 (competence)](https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/rpc.html) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Nevada Judiciary (published on nvcourts.gov): [Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Judicial Officers](https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/46693/AI_Guide_for_Judicial_Officers.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- State Bar of Nevada (Catherine Mazzeo, President), Nevada Lawyer magazine: [President's Message: Navigating AI with Competence and Care (Nevada Lawyer, September 2026, p. 4)](https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_September2026_PresidentsMessage_AI_LawUtilization.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Legal AI Governance Tracker, Nevada](https://legal-ai-governance.pages.dev/tracker/states/nevada/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [State Bar of Nevada](https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/) · 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.*