--- title: "New Hampshire: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/new-hampshire" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-NH" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # New Hampshire: AI rules for lawyers > New Hampshire: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/new-hampshire Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in New Hampshire in the last 12 months No new or changed AI rules recorded for New Hampshire in the last 12 months. ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Rule 1.1 Competence, comment [8] and Ethics Committee Comment on technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: New Hampshire Supreme Court (Rules of Professional Conduct) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.nh.gov/new-hampshire-rules-professional-conduct/rule-11-competence The official page for New Hampshire Rule 1.1 sets out the ABA Comment to the Model Rules, including comment [8]: a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. A separate NH Ethics Committee Comment says that, realistically, a lawyer should keep reasonably abreast of readily determinable benefits and risks of technology the lawyer uses, and of technology similarly situated lawyers are using. This is the general basis on which AI competence is assessed. It does not mention AI. Key points: - ABA comment [8] (formerly comment [6]) technology wording appears on the NH rule page. - Ethics Committee Comment limits the duty to keeping 'reasonably' abreast of 'readily determinable' benefits and risks. - Does not expressly mention artificial intelligence. ### State bar and regulators #### Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Discrimination and Bias (Ethics Corner) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee - Date on page: 30 October 2024 - Effective date: 30 October 2024 - Status: 30 October 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nhbar.org/understanding-generative-artificial-intelligence-and-the-potential-for-discrimination-and-bias/ Informal Ethics Corner commentary on bias and discrimination risks when lawyers use AI tools. It says whether use is permissible depends on the lawyer's competence, confidence in the tool and ability to mitigate bias, and that attorneys must use independent judgment. It states inadvertent bias from AI use does not engage Rule 8.4(g). Key points: - Rule 1.1 requires technological awareness, including how generative AI works. - Inadvertent bias from AI use is said not to engage Rule 8.4(g). - Lawyers should understand how sources may carry bias to weigh benefits and risks. - Recommends ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) as a primer. #### Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence (Ethics Corner) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee - Date on page: 10 September 2024 - Effective date: 10 September 2024 - Status: 10 September 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/ Informal Ethics Corner commentary on using outside generative AI (for example ChatGPT) to draft correspondence, pleadings, memoranda and other documents. It answers 'to some extent ... yes (with a few caveats)'. Under Rule 1.4 a lawyer who intends to use AI should promptly inform the client to obtain informed consent. Under Rule 1.6, disclosing confidential client information to an outside AI tool without informed consent is a violation, and consent should not be treated as impliedly authorised. Lawyers should generally avoid using outside generative AI to draft court pleadings, because that almost always discloses confidential information. Output must be verified (Rules 1.1, 3.3, 8.4) and AI use supervised (Rules 5.1 to 5.3). It notes that the NHBA has created a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence. Key points: - Rule 1.4: inform the client of intended AI use and obtain informed consent (citing ABA Resolution 112 (2019)). - Rule 1.6: informed consent is required before putting confidential client information into an outside AI tool; do not assume implied authorisation. - Generally avoid outside generative AI for court pleadings; using it to draft replies to opposing counsel that reveal strategy is said to be prohibited. - Verify all AI output and cite-check before use (Rules 1.1, 3.3, 8.4). - Rule 5.3 covers nonlawyer assistance 'whether human or not'; supervise AI use. - Acceptable examples include first drafts of generic documents with no client or matter identifying information, reviewed by the lawyer. #### Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (Ethics Corner) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee - Date on page: 15 May 2024 - Effective date: 15 May 2024 - Status: 15 May 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/ Informal Ethics Corner commentary (not a formal numbered opinion) for New Hampshire lawyers. It says lawyers must stay competent in technology under Rule 1.1 (quoting ABA Model Rule 1.1 comment 8) and must vet AI output before relying on it, citing Mata v. Avianca. It says unchecked use of AI may engage Rules 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 2.1 and 8.4(c), and discusses Rule 1.6(c) confidentiality and supervision under Rules 5.1 and 5.3. It recommends firm safeguards and policies on AI use. Key points: - Verify AI-generated authority (for example with KeyCite or Shepardizing) before use; be able to explain the results to a court if asked. - Review the tool's terms and conditions and privacy policy for how inputs are used and stored (Rule 1.6(c)). - Supervisory duties under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 may reach AI use. - Recommends safeguards and firm policies on AI use. - Does not itself state a court or client disclosure duty. ## Sources - New Hampshire Supreme Court (Rules of Professional Conduct): [Rule 1.1 Competence, comment 8 and Ethics Committee Comment on technology](https://www.courts.nh.gov/new-hampshire-rules-professional-conduct/rule-11-competence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee: [Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Discrimination and Bias (Ethics Corner)](https://www.nhbar.org/understanding-generative-artificial-intelligence-and-the-potential-for-discrimination-and-bias/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee: [Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence (Ethics Corner)](https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee: [Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (Ethics Corner)](https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [third-party mirror of General Court text](https://bills.nhliberty.org/bills/2026/SB657) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [NH General Court](https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=1711) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [NH Bar Association](https://www.nhbar.org/list-of-all-nhba-ethics-opinions-and-articles-with-hyperlinks/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [NH General Court](https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/bill_status.aspx?lsr=3270&sy=2026&txtsessionyear=2026&txtbillnumber=SB657) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 4 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*