New Hampshire: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Technology competence applies. The NH Rule 1.1 page sets out ABA comment [8] (keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology). The NH Ethics Committee Comment softens it: keep "reasonably abreast" of readily determinable benefits and risks of technology you use or that similarly situated lawyers use.

The Ethics Committee says unchecked AI output can engage Rules 1.1, 2.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1 and 8.4(c). It recommends verifying AI-generated authority (for example by KeyCite or Shepardizing) before filing, and having firm safeguards and policies.

The Committee advises reading the tool's terms and privacy policy to see how your inputs are used and stored. It says putting confidential client information into an outside generative AI tool without the client's informed consent breaches Rule 1.6, and that you should generally avoid using outside generative AI to draft court pleadings.

The Committee says it can be permissible to use generative AI to draft documents: "to some extent... yes (with a few caveats)". Good examples are first drafts of generic documents with no client or matter identifying information, reviewed by the lawyer.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Client disclosure/consent: informal guidance says yes. The Ethics Committee's September 2024 Ethics Corner says that under Rule 1.4 a lawyer who intends to use AI should promptly inform the client in order to obtain informed consent. It also says that under Rule 1.6 you need informed consent before putting confidential client information into an outside AI tool, and that implied authorisation should not be assumed. This is informal, non-binding guidance, not a rule.

  Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.