--- title: "North Carolina: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/north-carolina" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-NC" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # North Carolina: AI rules for lawyers > North Carolina: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/north-carolina Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers The State Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 says lawyers may use AI (including generative AI) if they are competent with the tool, keep client information secure, vet third-party vendors, and independently supervise and verify the output. Signing a pleading based on AI output carries the same Rule 3.1 and Rule 11 responsibility as any other pleading; the lawyer cannot rely on the tool. In the federal Western District of North Carolina, filing any document is a deemed certification that facts, law, citations and quotations are accurate, with human verification. The earlier separate AI certificate was superseded on 29 July 2026. In Cabarrus County Superior Court (District 25), AI used to create, alter or analyse evidence must be disclosed (generally 90 days before trial), but AI used only to draft advocacy documents need not be. AI-generated factual summaries or timelines served in discovery as factual assertions must be disclosed. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: depends. No statewide rule was found; Cabarrus County Superior Court requires disclosure of AI affecting evidence but not AI used only for drafting advocacy; the W.D.N.C. no longer requires a separate AI certificate but treats every filing as a certification of accuracy. Client disclosure/consent: depends. Generally not needed for ordinary tasks such as legal research; delegating substantive tasks to AI is likened to outsourcing and requires the client's advance informed consent. - [Artificial Intelligence, Local Orders, and the Courts](https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/civil-side/artificial-intelligence-local-orders-and-courts) - [Revised Administrative Order 25-09](https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/local-rules-and-forms/revised-administrative-order-in-re-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-superior-court-proceedings) - [Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf) - [2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1](https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in North Carolina in the last 12 months - 29 July 2026 · Dated: [Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (29 July 2026)](#ai-rule-jr-us-nc-wdnc-ai-order-2026) - 8 December 2025 · Dated: [Revised Administrative Order 25-09: In Re Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Superior Court Proceedings](#ai-rule-jr-us-nc-cabarrus-ao-25-09) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (29 July 2026) - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina - Date on page: SO ORDERED this the 29 day of July, 2026 - Effective date: 29 July 2026 - Status: 29 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf Applies to attorneys and pro se parties filing in the federal Western District of North Carolina. AI may be used for research and drafting, but filing a document is deemed a certification that facts have support, legal contentions are warranted, authorities exist and are accurately cited, and quotations are verbatim. It supersedes the June 2024 order, so a separate AI certificate is no longer required. Key points: - Human verification is required, by the signatory or a supervised attorney of record; the filer is responsible regardless of method of preparation. - Duty of technological competence including hallucination and confidentiality risks of public AI tools and LLMs. - The duty to validate extends to evidence and discovery items (transcripts, summaries, expert reports, demonstratives, media) touched by AI. - Sanctions listed include striking filings, show-cause orders, monetary sanctions, dismissal, disciplinary referral and bar from practice in the district. #### Revised Administrative Order 25-09: In Re Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Superior Court Proceedings - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Superior Court, Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) - Date on page: December 8, 2025 (filed) - Effective date: 8 December 2025 - Status: 8 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/local-rules-and-forms/revised-administrative-order-in-re-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-superior-court-proceedings Applies to civil and criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) and replaces the July 23, 2024 order. Parties and counsel may use AI under human-in-the-loop verification, but must disclose AI use that creates, alters, enhances or analyses evidence. Disclosure is not required for AI used only to draft advocacy documents such as briefs and motions that the lawyer reviews and adopts. Key points: - Disclosure of AI-affected evidence (including AI transcripts, translations and expert use of AI affecting methodology) must be made no later than 90 days before trial absent a scheduling order, and served on parties (not filed unless part of a motion). - No disclosure for AI used solely to draft legal argument (briefs, motions, pleadings the lawyer reviews and adopts), to check citations, grammar or formatting, or for technology-assisted review that does not generate evidence; but AI-generated factual summaries, narratives or timelines served or relied on as factual assertions in discovery must be disclosed. - Counsel must keep technological competence (Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 4.1), and must not put confidential information into public AI tools without reliable assurances. - Sanctions are available under Civil Procedure Rules 11, 26(g) and 37 and inherent authority, with a safe harbour for timely good-faith disclosure and verification; jurors may not use AI. #### Santree N.C. LLC v. Hines, COA25-252 (unpublished, per curiam) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: North Carolina Court of Appeals - Date on page: Filed September 17, 2025 - Effective date: 17 September 2025 - Status: 17 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/santree-nc-llc-v-hines An unpublished per curiam opinion in a lease ejectment appeal, dismissing a self-represented defendant's appeal for abandonment under Appellate Rule 28(b)(6). The court found that the reply brief cited non-existent or miscited cases and said the fabrications and miscited cases strongly suggest the use of artificial intelligence, citing AI sanctions decisions from Utah and the N.D. Miss. It is a signal of judicial attention, not a rule on AI. Checked against the official opinion PDF (COA25-252) linked from the court page. Key points: - The opinion is unpublished and states it is not controlling legal authority (N.C. R. App. P. 30(e)(3)). - Fabricated or miscited authorities in the reply brief were noted even though AI use was only suggested, not established; the appeal was dismissed on Rule 28(b)(6) abandonment grounds, not as an AI sanction. ### State bar and regulators #### 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: North Carolina State Bar - Date on page: Adopted: November 1, 2024 - Effective date: 1 November 2024 - Status: 1 November 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/ Answers six inquiries on lawyers' use of AI, including generative AI. A lawyer may use AI if they do so competently, securely and with independent supervision of the output. Applies to all North Carolina lawyers under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Key points: - Rules 1.1 (incl. comment 8), 1.6(c) and 5.3 apply: the lawyer must understand the tool's benefits and risks, protect client information and vet third-party vendors; as at the opinion date lawyers should avoid inputting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources. - Signing a pleading based on AI output carries the same Rule 3.1 and Rule 11 responsibilities as any other pleading. - Client disclosure depends on the tool and reliance: generally not needed for ordinary tasks such as legal research, but delegating substantive tasks to AI is likened to outsourcing and requires the client's advance informed consent (citing 2007 FEO 12). - A lawyer may not bill for time saved by AI; flat fees and accurate, client-agreed AI expenses are permitted. - The Committee did not opine on whether sharing information with an AI tool affects privilege. ## Sources - United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina: [Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (29 July 2026)](https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Superior Court, Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County): [Revised Administrative Order 25-09: In Re Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Superior Court Proceedings](https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/local-rules-and-forms/revised-administrative-order-in-re-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-superior-court-proceedings) · last checked 31 October 2026 - North Carolina Court of Appeals: [Santree N.C. LLC v. Hines, COA25-252 (unpublished, per curiam)](https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/santree-nc-llc-v-hines) · last checked 31 October 2026 - North Carolina State Bar: [2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice](https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Artificial Intelligence, Local Orders, and the Courts](https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/civil-side/artificial-intelligence-local-orders-and-courts) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [W.D.N.C.](https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Standing%20Order%20In%20Re-%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [North Carolina State Bar](https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-articles/artificial-intelligence-real-practice/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [North Carolina General Assembly](https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2025/H934) · 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.*