---
title: "Tennessee: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/tennessee"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-TN"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# Tennessee: AI rules for lawyers
> Tennessee: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/tennessee
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## What this means for lawyers
In Hamilton County chancery and circuit courts, from 1 September 2026, anyone who presents a document or exhibit, including material generated with AI, does so subject to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 57. The filer, lawyer and law firm remain responsible for AI-generated material, accurate or inaccurate. The rule does not set a disclosure legend.
In the 20th Judicial District (Davidson County), from 1 June 2026, a lawyer or self-represented party must not file a pleading, motion, brief or other paper prepared with generative AI without first confirming its accuracy, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions and legal analysis. The signer remains responsible. A breach may be sanctioned.
On the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, from 17 August 2026, a filing that includes any content written by an AI tool must show this statement in bold on page 1: “This document includes content written by an artificial intelligence tool.” Filings must also comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.
As at 31 October 2026.
## Telling the court and the client
**Tell the court:** Varies by court
On the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, from 17 August 2026, a filing that includes any content written by an AI tool must show this statement in bold on page 1: “This document includes content written by an artificial intelligence tool.” Filings must also comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11. The Board may strike a non-compliant filing, issue a show-cause order, or impose other Rule 11.03 sanctions. The Board’s Fall 2024 newsletter article on AI hallucinations, read in full, does not discuss client disclosure.
- [Standing Order in re: Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.tba.org/?pg=orgDocDownload&documentID=3080621)
- [Board Notes, Fall 2024, article on generative artificial intelligence hallucinations](https://docs.tbpr.org/pub/board-notes-fall-2024.pdf)
**Tell the client:** Unclear
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## What changed in Tennessee in the last 12 months
- 1 September 2026 · Dated: [Local Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 6.01: Rule 11, Supreme Court Rule 57, and artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-hamilton-lr-6-01)
- 17 August 2026 · Dated: [Standing Order in re: Use of Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-wcab-ai-standing-order)
- 1 June 2026 · Dated: [Local Rules § 6.03: signatures, certifying court filings, and generative AI](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-20th-local-6-03-genai)
- 28 April 2026 · Dated: [Public Chapter No. 781: definition of person excludes artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-pc781-person-excludes-ai)
- 30 March 2026 · Dated: [Public censure, BPR #024803, 30 March 2026: unchecked AI citations and supervision of a paralegal](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-bpr-censure-024803-2026-03-30)
- 1 January 2026 · Dated: [Chamber Rules, Section XXIII: use of generative artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-3rd-circuit-chamber-genai)
- 16 December 2025 · Dated: [Public censure, BPR #035492, 16 December 2025: failure to check another lawyer's AI citations](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-bpr-censure-035492-2025-12-16)
- 15 December 2025 · Dated: [Public censure, BPR #035871, 15 December 2025: unchecked AI citations](#ai-rule-jr-us-tn-bpr-censure-035871-2025-12-15)
## AI instruments
### Courts and tribunals
#### Local Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 6.01: Rule 11, Supreme Court Rule 57, and artificial intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Chancery and Circuit Courts of the Eleventh Judicial District (Hamilton County)
- Date on page: Adopted as Amended, Effective September 1, 2026
- Effective date: 1 September 2026
- Status: 1 September 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.hamiltontn.gov/PDF/courts/Local%20Rules%20of%20Civil%20Practice%20-%20Hamilton%20County%20Circuit%20and%20Chancery%20Courts%20-%20Effective%20September%201_2026.pdf
Applies in the chancery and circuit courts of Hamilton County. Rule 6.01 says any party presenting any document or exhibit to the clerk or the court, including material generated with AI, does so subject to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 57, and that this covers attorneys, law firms and pro se parties whatever the source. Filing, use or reliance on AI-generated material, accurate or inaccurate, remains the responsibility of the party, attorney and law firm. The rule does not set a disclosure legend.
Key points:
- Effective September 1, 2026. Rule 1.01 says that on that date these courts abrogate prior local rules and adopt these rules.
- Rules 1 through 14 apply in chancery and circuit. This is a civil local-rule set.
- Responsibility covers accurate and inaccurate AI-generated material.
- A separate Supreme Court order approving these local rules was not read.
#### Standing Order in re: Use of Artificial Intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Standing order
- Issuer: Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation
- Date on page: ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2026
- Effective date: 17 August 2026
- Status: 17 August 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.tba.org/?pg=orgDocDownload&documentID=3080621
Applies to any litigant, party or attorney who files a pleading, motion, brief or other document with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. From 17 August 2026, if the document includes any content written by an artificial intelligence tool, page 1 must show in bold the statement "This document includes content written by an artificial intelligence tool." Filings must also comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11, and non-compliance may lead to the filing being struck, a show-cause order, or other sanctions under Rule 11.03. The order, signed per curiam, was read from the PDF on the Tennessee Bar Association document download.
Key points:
- The set words and the bold page-1 placement are mandatory when AI-written content is included.
- The duty starts on August 17, 2026. The order was entered on August 3, 2026.
- The order is addressed to filings with the Appeals Board. It was not read as a rule of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.
- A Bureau of Workers' Compensation original URL was not the copy that was read.
#### Local Rules § 6.03: signatures, certifying court filings, and generative AI
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Circuit, Chancery, Criminal and Probate Courts of the Twentieth Judicial District (Davidson County)
- Date on page: Effective: June 1, 2026
- Effective date: 1 June 2026
- Status: 1 June 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://circuitclerk.nashville.gov/wp-content/uploads/Local-Rules_20260601.pdf
Applies to filings in the 20th Judicial District. Rules 1–8, where § 6.03 sits, apply to all case types in the circuit, chancery and criminal courts. Section 6.03 defines generative AI as a tool that creates new content from a prompt by learning from large data sets, with examples that include chat tools and legal-research products, and it forbids filing a paper prepared with generative AI until quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions and legal analysis are confirmed. The signer stays responsible even if generative AI drafted any part, a violation may be sanctioned, and the section does not prescribe disclosure wording.
Key points:
- The confirmation duty covers quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions and legal analysis.
- The section does not prescribe disclosure wording.
- A signature also certifies contentions by reference to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.02.
- Section 1.02 says special procedures for administrative appeals, domestic relations, adoptions, probate, conservatorships and guardianships (Local Rules 25, 37, 38 and 39) control where the general rules are inconsistent with them. Section 6.03 does not state an exception.
- A separate Supreme Court order approving these local rules was not read.
#### Chamber Rules, Section XXIII: use of generative artificial intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Circuit Court, Division III, Twentieth Judicial District (Davidson County)
- Date on page: These rules shall be effective on January 1, 2026
- Effective date: 1 January 2026
- Status: 1 January 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://circuitclerk.nashville.gov/wp-content/uploads/Third-Circuit-Court-Chamber-Rules_Effective-01.01.2026.pdf
Applies to matters in Circuit Court Division III of the 20th Judicial District. Section XXIII uses the same generative-AI definition and examples as the district local rule. An attorney or self-represented party must not file a paper prepared using generative AI without first confirming quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions and legal analysis, and the signer remains responsible. A violation may be sanctioned, and statewide evidence, procedure, professional-conduct and judicial-conduct rules supersede a conflict.
Key points:
- Effective January 1, 2026, before the district-wide § 6.03 date of June 1, 2026.
- The section does not prescribe disclosure wording.
- It applies to matters in Division III. It is a chamber rule, separate from the district local rules.
- The cover identifies the division by the judge's name. The rule is recorded by court, not by that name.
### State bar and regulators
#### Public censure, BPR #024803, 30 March 2026: unchecked AI citations and supervision of a paralegal
- Type: Regulator guidance · Regulator statement
- Issuer: Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Date on page: March 30, 2026
- Effective date: 30 March 2026
- Status: 30 March 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://docs.tbpr.org/willis-101606-8-rel.pdf
The Board publicly censured a Tennessee-licensed lawyer, BPR #024803, of Dyer County, on 30 March 2026. The release says the lawyer personally used AI to help prepare a reply brief filed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, that the Court found over seventy percent of the citations were fictitious, and that the lawyer did not check them or verify a belief that a paralegal had checked the citations, the technical record and the transcript. The stated breaches are RPC 1.3, 5.3 and 8.4, covering diligence, supervision of a nonlawyer assistant, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. A public censure does not affect the ability to practise.
Key points:
- The release quotes a finding that over seventy percent of the citations were fictitious.
- The stated supervision breach is RPC 5.3, for failing to verify the paralegal's check.
- The forum named is the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The discipline is of a Tennessee licensee.
- A public censure does not affect the ability to practise.
#### Public censure, BPR #035492, 16 December 2025: failure to check another lawyer's AI citations
- Type: Regulator guidance · Regulator statement
- Issuer: Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Date on page: December 16, 2025
- Effective date: 16 December 2025
- Status: 16 December 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://docs.tbpr.org/cranford-101333-0-rel.pdf
The Board publicly censured a Tennessee-licensed lawyer, BPR #035492, on 16 December 2025. The release says the lawyer drafted, signed and personally filed two motions in federal court in Alabama that included fabricated citations generated by AI, that another attorney added the citations, and that this lawyer had to check them before signing and filing and did not. The stated violations are RPC 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4. A public censure does not affect the ability to practise.
Key points:
- The release treats the signing lawyer as responsible for AI citations added by another attorney.
- The forum named is federal court in Alabama. The discipline is of a Tennessee licensee.
- Stated rule breaches are RPC 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4.
- A public censure does not affect the ability to practise.
#### Public censure, BPR #035871, 15 December 2025: unchecked AI citations
- Type: Regulator guidance · Regulator statement
- Issuer: Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Date on page: December 16, 2025
- Effective date: 15 December 2025
- Status: 15 December 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://docs.tbpr.org/reeves-101332-0-rel.pdf
The Board publicly censured a Tennessee-licensed lawyer, BPR #035871, on 15 December 2025. The release says the lawyer represented a client in federal court in Alabama, personally used AI to add citations to two motions, the citations were fabricated, and the lawyer took no action to check them. The release states violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation) and 8.4 (misconduct), and says the conduct caused delay and was prejudicial to the administration of justice. A public censure is a rebuke and warning and does not affect the ability to practise.
Key points:
- The forum named in the release is federal court in Alabama, not a Tennessee state court. The discipline is Tennessee discipline of a Tennessee licensee.
- The release says the lawyer personally used AI and did not check the citations.
- Stated rule breaches are RPC 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4.
- A public censure does not affect the ability to practise.
#### Board Notes, Fall 2024: The Danger of Generative Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations in Legal Practice
- Type: Regulator guidance
- Issuer: Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Date on page: Fall 2024
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: Fall 2024; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://docs.tbpr.org/pub/board-notes-fall-2024.pdf
A staff article in the Board's Fall 2024 newsletter. A footnote identifies the author by the office of Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations. The article says Tennessee has adopted the technology-competence comment at RPC 1.1 Comment [8], discusses RPC 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 5.1 and 5.3, and says a negligent failure to check a citation can implicate RPC 3.1 where the candour rules require knowing conduct. It says lawyers with managerial authority must, under RPC 5.1, create protocols for firm technology, including restrictions on unapproved GAI tools. It tells lawyers to review standing orders where they appear and advises that attorneys should err on the side of caution in disclosing any AI tools to avoid potential noncompliance. Its own research note that no public discipline had yet been taken in Tennessee or any other jurisdiction for generative-AI hallucinations is overtaken by the later censure releases.
Key points:
- This is a newsletter article. Formal ethics opinions are numbered separately.
- The article applies RPC 1.1 Comment [8], RPC 3.1, RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.4(c), RPC 5.1 and RPC 5.3 to hallucinated citations.
- It says RPC 5.1 requires lawyers with managerial or supervisory authority to create and implement protocols on firm technology and to restrict unapproved technology, including GAI tools.
- Its discussion of disclosure is about standing orders of tribunals, including examples from other jurisdictions, and about RPC 3.4(c). Because the scope of some standing orders is unclear, it advises erring on the side of caution in disclosing any AI tools. This is staff advice, not a rule.
- The article's statement (footnote 12) that research revealed no public discipline yet in Tennessee or any other jurisdiction is overtaken by the December 2025 and March 2026 censure releases.
### Legislation
#### Public Chapter No. 781: definition of person excludes artificial intelligence
- Type: Legislation
- Issuer: Tennessee General Assembly
- Date on page: Bill history: 04/28/2026 Signed by Governor; Pub. Ch. 781
- Effective date: 28 April 2026
- Status: 28 April 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0781.pdf
Public Chapter No. 781 amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-105(a) by replacing subdivision (20), the general definition of "person". Under new (20)(A), "person" includes a corporation, firm, company or association, and under (20)(B) it does not include artificial intelligence, a computer algorithm, a software program, computer hardware, or any type of machine. The act took effect upon becoming law when the Governor signed it on 28 April 2026. It is a definition in the general code and does not set duties for lawyers using AI in practice.
Key points:
- Senate Bill No. 837 by Senate Judiciary Amendment No. 1 (SA0922), which rewrote the bill. House Bill No. 849 was substituted and conformed to SB 837.
- A firm remains inside the inclusive clause (A) of the definition. Artificial intelligence is in the exclusion clause (B).
- Signed by the Governor on 28 April 2026 and effective on becoming law.
- The chapter PDF at the cited URL returned HTTP 403 on 2026-10-31. The text and dates were checked against the General Assembly bill-status page and the adopted amendment text.
## Sources
11 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.
- Chancery and Circuit Courts of the Eleventh Judicial District (Hamilton County): [Local Rules of Civil Practice, Rule 6.01: Rule 11, Supreme Court Rule 57, and artificial intelligence](https://www.hamiltontn.gov/PDF/courts/Local%20Rules%20of%20Civil%20Practice%20-%20Hamilton%20County%20Circuit%20and%20Chancery%20Courts%20-%20Effective%20September%201_2026.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation: [Standing Order in re: Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.tba.org/?pg=orgDocDownload&documentID=3080621) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Circuit, Chancery, Criminal and Probate Courts of the Twentieth Judicial District (Davidson County): [Local Rules § 6.03: signatures, certifying court filings, and generative AI](https://circuitclerk.nashville.gov/wp-content/uploads/Local-Rules_20260601.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Circuit Court, Division III, Twentieth Judicial District (Davidson County): [Chamber Rules, Section XXIII: use of generative artificial intelligence](https://circuitclerk.nashville.gov/wp-content/uploads/Third-Circuit-Court-Chamber-Rules_Effective-01.01.2026.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee: [Public censure, BPR #024803, 30 March 2026: unchecked AI citations and supervision of a paralegal](https://docs.tbpr.org/willis-101606-8-rel.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee: [Public censure, BPR #035492, 16 December 2025: failure to check another lawyer's AI citations](https://docs.tbpr.org/cranford-101333-0-rel.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee: [Public censure, BPR #035871, 15 December 2025: unchecked AI citations](https://docs.tbpr.org/reeves-101332-0-rel.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee: [Board Notes, Fall 2024: The Danger of Generative Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations in Legal Practice](https://docs.tbpr.org/pub/board-notes-fall-2024.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Tennessee General Assembly: [Public Chapter No. 781: definition of person excludes artificial intelligence](https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0781.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Tennessee General Assembly](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0837&GA=114) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Tennessee General Assembly](https://capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Amend/SA0922.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
## Key facts
- Kind: State
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0
- AI instruments recorded: 9
*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*