--- title: "Oregon: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/oregon" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-OR" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Oregon: AI rules for lawyers > Oregon: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/oregon Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI](https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf) - [Formal Opinion No 2025-205, Artificial Intelligence Tools](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf) - [ORAP Committee 2026 April 16 Agenda — Combined Agenda and Materials](https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/ORAP%20Committee%202026%20--%20April%2016%20Combined%20Agenda%20and%20Materials.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Oregon in the last 12 months - 4 June 2026 · Dated: [Oregon Supreme Court issues its first orders related to AI (Aldridge v. Tussing, S072780; Witkin v. McGreevy, S072692)](#ai-rule-jr-us-or-sct-orders-aldridge-witkin) - 29 April 2026 · Dated: [Media release: Message from the Chief Judge on fabricated legal authority](#ai-rule-jr-us-or-coa-chief-judge-message-2026-04-29) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Oregon Supreme Court issues its first orders related to AI (Aldridge v. Tussing, S072780; Witkin v. McGreevy, S072692) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court (orders); Oregon Judicial Department (release) - Date on page: Orders: 06-04-2026; release: June 5, 2026 - Effective date: 4 June 2026 - Status: 4 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/OJD/Posts/Post/Oregon-Supreme-Court-issues-first-AI-orders Two Supreme Court orders on AI-fabricated authority, announced by OJD as the court's first. In Aldridge, the relators blamed a generative AI service ('LegalAI') for fabricated citations, then filed a declaration with more nonexistent cases. The court struck the petition and the show-cause response and dismissed the mandamus proceeding. In Witkin, the respondent, self-represented when he filed, admitted using generative AI. The court struck his response and accepted his stipulated $500 sanction. It allowed a refiled response, which must certify that every source of law cited, quoted or paraphrased exists. Neither order requires disclosure of AI use. Key points: - Aldridge: 'The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings. Doing it repeatedly, and in response to a show cause order, warrants imposition of a meaningful sanction.' - Witkin: relying on AI-generated citations without any effort to verify them is unreasonable, even for a self-represented filer. The court ordered $500 paid to the Appellate Court Services Division. - The OJD release says the orders make clear that the duty to submit accurate information extends to self-represented litigants. - Order PDFs: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/publications/sc/SC%20Opinions/Order_Miscellaneous_Case_Order_Aldridge_v_Tussing_S072780.pdf and https://www.courts.oregon.gov/publications/sc/SC%20Opinions/Order_Miscellaneous_Case_Order_Witkins_v_McGreevy_S072692.pdf #### Media release: Message from the Chief Judge on fabricated legal authority - Type: Statement or media release · Media release - Issuer: Oregon Court of Appeals - Date on page: April 29, 2026 - Effective date: 29 April 2026 - Status: 29 April 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/news/Lists/ArticleNews/Attachments/2393/19c13b1ce3ccb6468e1bde3c793e642d-COA%20Media%20Release%2004-29-26.pdf Chief Judge Erin C. Lagesen says the Court of Appeals is receiving a rapidly escalating number of filings, from lawyers and self-represented litigants alike, that contain fabricated legal authority likely produced by generative AI. The court has posted information on the risks of using generative AI to prepare briefs and on the possible sanctions. She has directed staff and judges to track the time spent dealing with fabricated authority. It is a statement, not a rule. Key points: - The information is posted under 'Rules and Resources' and 'Resources for Self-Represented Litigants' on the court's website. - Judges and staff are tracking the time spent on fabricated authority so the resources it consumes can be accounted for. #### Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Oregon Court of Appeals - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf Court of Appeals notice that fabricated authority produced by generative AI is grounds for striking a filing and for sanctions. Sanctions include monetary sanctions payable to the court, attorney fees payable to the opposing party, and dismissal of the appeal. 'Fabricated authority' covers nonexistent citations, quotations not in the cited authority, propositions not reasonably related to the citation, and made-up factual support. The notice applies to anyone, lawyer or self-represented, who uses generative AI to prepare content for a court filing. It does not require disclosure of AI use. Key points: - Filers using generative AI must verify that all cases cited exist, that quotations are actually in the cited cases, and that paraphrased propositions of law are objectively reasonable given what the case says. - Cites Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or App 301 (2025) (sanctions on an attorney); Powell v. Employment Department, 347 Or App 55 (2026) (sanctions on a self-represented party); and Williams v. Honl, 348 Or App 505 (2026) (appellant's attorneys ordered to pay $8,044.25 in the respondent's attorney fees). - Warns, citing Williams v. Honl at 510 n 2, that AI products from established legal providers are not necessarily incapable of generating fabricated authority. #### ORAP Committee 2026, April 16 materials: Proposal #3 (version 3.2), ORAP 1.40 and 13.25, fabricated facts and law from AI - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Oregon Appellate Rules (ORAP) Committee - Date on page: April 16, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/ORAP%20Committee%202026%20--%20April%2016%20Combined%20Agenda%20and%20Materials.pdf Proposed amendments to the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure (ORAP), put forward by Court of Appeals Chief Judge Lagesen. Under the draft, a person signing a filing in an appellate court (Supreme Court or Court of Appeals) would be certifying that it contains no 'fabricated authority', defined as fake legal or factual content, whether AI-generated or not. Sanctions would follow for a false certification. The proposal does not regulate AI use directly and has no disclosure requirement. It is a draft, not in force as far as found. Key points: - Draft ORAP 1.40(5): signing an appellate filing certifies it contains no fabricated authority (nonexistent citations, quotations not in the source, propositions not reasonably related to the citation, or factual support with no basis in the record). - Draft ORAP 13.25(3): the court may order a show cause; absent good cause it will impose sanctions, with monetary sanctions of at least $500 each time a fabricated authority is referenced, and possible dismissal where the document is an opening brief or case-initiating document. - Listed 'for discussion' only. Check later ORAP Committee materials and Supreme Court ORAP amendment orders for the outcome. ### State bar and regulators #### Formal Opinion No 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Oregon State Bar - Date on page: Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2025 (footer: '2025 Edition') - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2025 (footer: '2025 Edition'); start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf Answers 'yes, qualified' to whether Oregon lawyers may use AI and generative AI tools in practice. Applies to all Oregon lawyers. It ties AI use to Oregon RPC 1.1 (competence), 1.4(b) and 1.2(a) (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality), 5.1–5.3 (supervision), and 3.3 and 4.1 (candor and truthfulness). It is an ethics opinion, not a court rule. Key points: - Competence: lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the specific AI tool, do due diligence on the tool and vendor, and train anyone they supervise. - Client disclosure is not always mandatory. It may be required where AI use deviates materially from the client's expectations; assess each case against listed factors, and consider consulting the client first. - Confidentiality: client information may go into an 'open' (learning) model only with the client's informed consent; without consent, anonymise or redact sensitive information. Closed models still need contract review covering how data is handled, encrypted, stored and destroyed. - Fees: bill reasonable case-specific time only, and do not duplicate charges or inflate hours. Time spent learning the tool is chargeable only at the client's request under a clear agreement. Tell clients (preferably in writing) before passing on actual AI costs. Do not charge AI costs already counted as overhead. - Supervision: managerial lawyers must set firm AI-use policies and train staff on the specific tool. Lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of all work product, including AI output. - Candor: lawyers must verify AI-assisted work and check AI citations, quotations and conclusions for accuracy. They must check whether a court has rules banning AI or requiring disclosure of its use, and must correct any false statement made to a tribunal. #### Formal Opinion No 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Oregon State Bar - Date on page: Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2026 (footer: '2026') - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Approved by the Board of Governors, February 2026 (footer: '2026'); start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf Answers 'yes, qualified' to whether Oregon lawyers may use chatbots, including those powered by AI agents, to communicate with clients or prospective clients for marketing and intake. Applies to lawyers who use chatbots or make them available on websites, phones, by text or elsewhere. Relies on Formal Opinion 2025-205 for general AI duties. Key points: - Lawyers are responsible for chatbots they use. Chatbots that use AI agents act with more autonomy and carry greater ethics risk, so it would be prudent to require lawyer approval of their autonomous actions. - A chatbot that sounds like a lawyer could lead a prospective client to believe a lawyer-client relationship exists. Use clear disclaimers; it would be prudent to have a responsible lawyer automatically notified and able to review the interactions promptly. - RPC 7.1: other states have said a chatbot that does not identify itself as a chatbot could be misleading. Chatbots must not mislead about expertise or results, and must not give legal advice (risk of unauthorised practice). - RPC 1.6, 1.18 and 5.3: check that the chatbot and any underlying vendors keep information secure and do not use client data for training. Enter prospective clients into the conflicts system promptly. Be able to monitor and change the chatbot's responses. ## 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)](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/OJD/Posts/Post/Oregon-Supreme-Court-issues-first-AI-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Oregon Court of Appeals: [Media release: Message from the Chief Judge on fabricated legal authority](https://www.courts.oregon.gov/news/Lists/ArticleNews/Attachments/2393/19c13b1ce3ccb6468e1bde3c793e642d-COA%20Media%20Release%2004-29-26.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Oregon Court of Appeals: [Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI](https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/ORAP%20Committee%202026%20--%20April%2016%20Combined%20Agenda%20and%20Materials.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Oregon State Bar: [Formal Opinion No 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Oregon State Bar: [Formal Opinion No 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Oregon State Bar](https://bog.osbar.org/files/6C-2025.02-LEC-Combined.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Oregon Legislature (OLIS)](https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/SB1546) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 6 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*