--- title: "Vermont: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/vermont" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-VT" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Vermont: AI rules for lawyers > Vermont: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/vermont Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers In Vermont state courts you may use AI if the use and the work product meet legal and ethical standards. If you give AI output to the Judiciary, or use it in a proceeding, you are expected to review it and confirm that it is accurate. You must not let the tool compromise sensitive or confidential information. The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct apply in full to a lawyer's use of AI systems and output. Administrative Directive No. 38 does not require you to tell the court that you used AI. The judiciary committee's first annual report, dated 3-1-25, recommends no amendments to court rules, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. It treats existing rules as covering use and misuse of generative AI, and it summarises guidance rather than issuing a formal ethics opinion. Competence includes knowing the risks and benefits of generative AI. An unchecked quotation can breach Rule 11. In LaRoche v. Sterett (LaRoche), No. 24-AP-406, the Supreme Court held that counsel violated V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) by filing a quotation, attributed to a real case, that counsel said came from a client's "AI helper" draft and that counsel did not check. The sanction is to file the entry order in pending Superior Court cases and to certify that within 14 days. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear Court disclosure: no rule found. Administrative Directive No. 38 requires court users to review and confirm the accuracy of AI output given to the Judiciary or used in a proceeding. It does not require disclosure or a certification that AI was used. The 2025 committee recommended no court-rule amendment on disclosure, transparency, or certification. Client disclosure/consent: depends. The committee's summarised guidance says a lawyer might consider disclosing to the client the intent, nature, and extent of generative-AI use, and it urges caution if a lawyer intends to rely solely on generative AI to communicate with a client. That is a recommendation in a committee report. The report does not state that client consent is required before any use. The same summary says use can risk an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information and includes review of a tool's terms of service. - [Administrative Directive No. 38, Policy on Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/AdministrativeDirectiveNo38PolicyonArtificialIntelligence) - [First Annual Report](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/18860) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Vermont in the last 12 months No new or changed AI rules recorded for Vermont in the last 12 months. ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Administrative Directive No. 38: Policy on Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court - Date on page: 6 October 2025 - Effective date: 6 October 2025 - Status: 6 October 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/AdministrativeDirectiveNo38PolicyonArtificialIntelligence Applies to court users, including lawyers and self-represented litigants, and to Judiciary employees. The Judiciary authorises AI use where the use and the work product comply with legal and ethical standards, and court users are expected to review and confirm the accuracy of AI output given to the Judiciary or used in a proceeding and to keep sensitive or confidential information from being compromised. For attorneys and judicial officers, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct and the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct apply fully to the use of AI systems and output. The directive does not require disclosure or certification of AI use. Key points: - Court users and Judiciary employees may use AI if legal and ethical standards are met. - Every court user, including a self-represented litigant, is expected to review and confirm the accuracy of AI output given to the Judiciary or used in a proceeding. - AI systems must not compromise sensitive or confidential information, and data used with AI must be handled in line with data privacy regulations. - The professional-conduct rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct apply fully to attorneys' and judicial officers' use of AI systems and output. - The 6 October 2025 text is an amendment. Sections I and II are not marked as new. New underlined text includes a definition of generative AI and changes in the Judiciary's own adoption section. #### First Annual Report - Type: Report, research or submission · Report - Issuer: Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts - Date on page: 3-1-25 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 3-1-25; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/18860 Applies as committee guidance to Vermont lawyers, judges, and self-represented litigants, and it is not a formal ethics opinion or a promulgated rule. The committee recommends no present amendments to court rules, the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, or the judicial conduct rules, and says existing rules cover use or misuse of generative AI. The summarised lawyer guidance says competence includes the risks and benefits of generative AI, that a lawyer might consider telling the client the intent, nature, and extent of use, that use can risk an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, and that fees must not be unreasonable. The report asks the MCLE Board to consider a technology education credit that includes AI. Key points: - No amendments are recommended to court rules, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. - The report quotes the competence comment that a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, and says generative AI is technology relevant to practice. - A lawyer might consider disclosing to the client the intent, nature, and extent of generative-AI use. The report urges caution if a lawyer intends to rely solely on generative AI to communicate with a client. - Use can risk unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The summarised guidance includes a careful review of a tool's terms of service. Fees must not be unreasonable, and use or non-use can affect time spent. - The MCLE Board is asked to consider a technology-specific education credit, including AI. This report does not change the CLE requirements. #### Fitzgerald v. Brady, No. 25-CV-2920, ruling on motion to dismiss - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division - Date on page: Electronically signed on December 22, 2025; filed 12/23/25 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Electronically signed on December 22, 2025; filed 12/23/25; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19750 Applies in this civil case to a self-represented plaintiff. In a ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court said the opposition appeared to contain citations of non-existent cases and fake quotations, possibly generated by artificial intelligence, and it warned that any future citation of nonexistent legal authorities or fake quotations, whether generated by artificial intelligence or otherwise, violates Rule 11 and may result in sanctions. The order does not impose a sanction for the citations. It grants the motion to dismiss as to counts I and II and denies it as to counts III, IV, and V. Key points: - The Court said the self-represented plaintiff's opposition appeared to cite non-existent cases and fake quotations, possibly generated by artificial intelligence. - The order gives as examples a citation to Russin v. Shepard, 2014 VT 22, which the Court said does not exist, and quotations attributed to Colby v. Umbrella, Inc. and Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co. that the Court said are not in those opinions. - By presenting a document, a party certifies under V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) that legal contentions are warranted by existing law after a reasonable inquiry. - The Court warned that any future citation of nonexistent authorities or fake quotations, whether generated by artificial intelligence or otherwise, violates Rule 11 and may result in sanctions. - No sanction is imposed in this order. The warning states that self-represented litigants remain bound by Rule 11. #### LaRoche v. Sterett (LaRoche), No. 24-AP-406, entry order - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court - Date on page: November Term, 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: November Term, 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19591 Applies to counsel who filed the appellant's amended brief in this appeal. The Court held that counsel violated V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2), applied through V.R.A.P. 25(d), by presenting language as a quotation from Sprague v. Nally when that language is not in the opinion. At oral argument on 5 November 2025, counsel said the language came from a client's "AI helper" draft and that counsel did not check it, and the Court said a reasonable inquiry required counsel to read the case and confirm the quotation. The sanction is to file a copy of the entry order in every pending Vermont Superior Court case in which counsel has appeared, and to file a certification in this docket within 14 days. Key points: - The amended brief of 8 May 2025 presented language as a direct quotation from Sprague v. Nally. That language is not in the opinion. - Counsel told the Court the language came from a client's "AI helper" draft and that counsel did not confirm its accuracy before filing. - The Court held this violated Rule 11(b)(2). Presenting a document certifies that legal contentions are warranted by existing law after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. - Counsel must file the entry order in all pending Vermont Superior Court cases in which counsel has appeared, and must certify that within 14 days. - The order sanctions a failure to check a quotation. It does not require lawyers to disclose AI use. ## Sources 16 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - Vermont Supreme Court: [Administrative Directive No. 38: Policy on Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/AdministrativeDirectiveNo38PolicyonArtificialIntelligence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: [First Annual Report](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/18860) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division: [Fitzgerald v. Brady, No. 25-CV-2920, ruling on motion to dismiss](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19750) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Vermont Supreme Court: [LaRoche v. Sterett (LaRoche), No. 24-AP-406, entry order](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19591) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Judiciary](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/attorneys/mandatory-continuing-legal-education) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [United States District Court for the District of Vermont](https://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/sites/vtd/files/LocalRules-20260420.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Judiciary](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/supreme-court/administrative-directives) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Supreme Court](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/VermontJudiciaryCommitteeonArtificialIntelligenceandtheCourtsChargeandDesignation) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Judiciary](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/about-vermont-judiciary/boards-and-committees/artificial-intelligence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Supreme Court](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19162) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [United States District Court for the District of Vermont](https://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont General Assembly](https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2026/H.792) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont General Assembly](https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/BILLS/H-0792/H-0792%20As%20Introduced.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont General Assembly](https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2026/H.855) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/18861) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Vermont Judiciary](https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/VermontRulesofProfessionalConduct.pdf) · 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.*