4 June 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOregon Supreme Court (orders); Oregon Judicial Department (release)Orders: 06-04-2026; release: June 5, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Oregon: AI rules for lawyers
Oregon, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Verify every AI-assisted citation, quotation and stated proposition before filing. The Court of Appeals says fabricated authority is grounds for striking the filing and for sanctions (money to the court, the opponent's attorney fees, dismissal of the appeal). The State Bar says lawyers must check AI output for accuracy and correct any false statement made to a tribunal.
Courts are imposing sanctions. In Williams v. Honl the appellant's attorneys were ordered to pay $8,044.25 of the respondent's attorney fees (per the court's notice). The Supreme Court has struck filings, dismissed a proceeding, and imposed a $500 sanction.
The Oregon State Bar says lawyers may use AI and generative AI ("yes, qualified") if they are competent in the specific tool, protect confidentiality, supervise others, bill honestly and verify the output.
Do not put client information into an "open" (learning) model without the client's informed consent; without consent, anonymise or redact it. Review vendor contracts even for closed tools.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. No Oregon court rule or notice found requires disclosure of AI use. The Court of Appeals notice requires verification, not disclosure.
The Bar tells lawyers to check each court's own rules or orders for disclosure requirements. A pending ORAP proposal would make signing an appellate filing a certification that it contains no fabricated authority; it does not require disclosure, and no outcome was found. Client disclosure/consent: depends.
Disclosure may be required where AI use deviates materially from the client's expectations (assessed case by case). Informed consent is required before using client information in an open model.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Oregon in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
29 April 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOregon Court of AppealsApril 29, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Practice noteOregon Court of AppealsDate not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Consultation, not in forceSecondaryOregon Appellate Rules (ORAP) CommitteeApril 16, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2025 (footer: '2025 Edition'); start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOregon State BarApproved by the Board of Governors, February 2025 (footer: '2025 Edition')Last checked 31 October 2026
Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2026 (footer: '2026'); start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOregon State BarApproved by the Board of Governors, February 2026 (footer: '2026')Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Oregon Supreme Court (orders); Oregon Judicial Department (release): Oregon Supreme Court issues its first orders related to AI (Aldridge v. Tussing, S072780; Witkin v. McGreevy, S072692) · last checked
- Oregon Court of Appeals: Media release: Message from the Chief Judge on fabricated legal authority · last checked
- Oregon Court of Appeals: Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI · last checked
- Oregon Appellate Rules (ORAP) Committee: ORAP Committee 2026, April 16 materials: Proposal #3 (version 3.2), ORAP 1.40 and 13.25, fabricated facts and law from AI · last checked
- Oregon State Bar: Formal Opinion No 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools · last checked
- Oregon State Bar: Formal Opinion No 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications · last checked
- Oregon State Bar · last checked
- Oregon Legislature (OLIS) · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.