--- title: "Virginia: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/virginia" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-VA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Virginia: AI rules for lawyers > Virginia: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/virginia Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers Check the trial court before you file. There is no statewide rule that every Virginia filing must certify generative-AI use. Richmond (entered 13 January 2026) requires a certification disclosing the use of AI in pleadings, exhibits, memoranda, sketch orders, and other filings. Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on 24 November 2025 and effective that day, says it is not per se unreasonable to charge the same non-hourly fee when AI is used. Every Rule 1.5(a) factor still applies, and Rule 1.5(b) requires the basis of the fee to be explained, especially when time on the matter is much reduced. There is no per se duty to tell the client that generative AI was used. The Bar's guidance says disclosure depends on any client agreement or instruction, whether confidential information will be entered, and the risk to the client. Read the tool's terms before entering confidential information, and consider a supervision policy under Rule 5.1. On 11 March 2026 the Fourth Circuit publicly admonished a member of its bar for nonexistent citations and said the sanction did not turn on whether generative AI was used. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: depends. There is no statewide filing-certification rule. Richmond requires disclosure of AI use in a filing and in proposed exhibits. Staunton, Waynesboro, Amherst, Williamsburg and James City County, and King William require a certification when generative AI drafts, creates, enhances, or modifies a filing or a proposed exhibit. The Eastern District of Virginia order for Chief Judge Lauck's civil cases requires identification of generative-AI use and a citation check. Client disclosure/consent: depends. The Virginia State Bar says there is no per se requirement to inform the client. Whether disclosure is necessary depends on any agreement or instruction, whether confidential information will be disclosed to the tool, and the risk to the client. The fee basis must still be explained under Rule 1.5(b) and Legal Ethics Opinion 1901. - [Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/richmond/local_rule_artificial_intelligence.pdf) - [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/staunton/local_rule_ai.pdf) - [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Waynesboro/local_rule_ai.pdf) - [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/amherst/local_rule_ai.pdf) - [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Williamsburg~James_City_County/local_rule_ai.pdf) - [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/King_William/local_rule_ai.pdf) - [Standing order on Local Civil Rule 7(E) and artificial intelligence](https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf) - [Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, approved and ordered effective immediately](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf) - [Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Virginia in the last 12 months - 1 September 2026 · Dated: [Standing order on Local Civil Rule 7(E) and artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-edva-chief-judge-ai-order) - 25 August 2026 · Dated: [LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC, Record No. 1407-25-4](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-cav-lpc-1407-25-4) - 2 July 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-wjc-circuit-ai-rule) - 25 June 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-king-william-circuit-ai-rule) - 25 June 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-staunton-circuit-ai-rule) - 25 June 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-waynesboro-circuit-ai-rule) - 11 March 2026 · Dated: [Unpublished public admonishment for nonexistent citations, No. 25-9517](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-4th-cir-25-9517) - 3 March 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-amherst-circuit-ai-rule) - 13 January 2026 · Dated: [Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-richmond-circuit-ai-rule) - 24 November 2025 · Dated: [Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable fees and the use of generative artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-va-leo-1901) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Standing order on Local Civil Rule 7(E) and artificial intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Date on page: Entered this 1st day of September, 2026 - Effective date: 1 September 2026 - Status: 1 September 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf This standing order, captioned in the Richmond Division, applies to all civil cases assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck. If any party uses generative artificial intelligence to prepare any filing, the party must identify that use in the filing and certify that all citations were reviewed for accuracy. The order also says Local Civil Rule 7(E) does not apply in those cases: a motion is not deemed withdrawn merely because no hearing was requested or waived, and the court sets a hearing only if it decides one is necessary. The district standing-orders page lists this order and does not list a district-wide AI order. Key points: - Applies only to civil cases assigned to the Chief Judge - Generative-AI use in a filing must be identified, with a certification that citations were checked - Local Civil Rule 7(E) hearing practice is set aside for those cases - No district-wide Eastern District AI order appears on the standing-orders page #### LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC, Record No. 1407-25-4 - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Court of Appeals of Virginia - Date on page: Opinion Issued August 25, 2026 - Effective date: 25 August 2026 - Status: 25 August 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/opinions/opncavwp/1407254.pdf In this commercial appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and, in a separate part, sanctioned the appellee's brief under Code § 8.01-271.1. The brief contained 25 phantom quotations attributed to Virginia cases, ranging from paraphrases to quotations the court called hallucinated and presumably computer-fabricated. Counsel acknowledged the errors, said they were unintentional, and the court accepted that. The court concluded the source was some form of computer-assisted research that went awry, and that the lawyer who signs the brief is responsible. It did not find that a named generative-AI product was used. Because the statute requires a sanction and no monetary loss was shown, the court called on counsel to complete a CLE course on AI or appellate practice within six months of the opinion. A footnote says the Virginia State Bar had recently introduced proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902 for comment. Key points: - Published opinion issued 25 August 2026, Record No. 1407-25-4 - 25 phantom quotations; sanction is a CLE course on AI or appellate practice within six months - The court did not find use of a named generative-AI product - Points to Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and 3.3 and to the signature certificate in Code § 8.01-271.1 - Footnote 18 still describes Legal Ethics Opinion 1902 as introduced for comment #### Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court for the City of Williamsburg and the County of James City - Date on page: Entered this 2nd day of July, 2026 - Effective date: 2 July 2026 - Status: 2 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Williamsburg~James_City_County/local_rule_ai.pdf Entered under Rule 1:15. Generative AI is not prohibited. Human oversight is required, and the person who submits material drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI must review its accuracy. A written disclosure certification is required on those materials. It applies to any filing, pleading, motion, brief, memorandum, sketch order, letter, or other document, including exhibits. A certification for proposed exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing. Failure to review may result in sanctions or contempt. The model disclosure certifies personal review and compliance with Code § 8.01-271.1, Rule 1:5, and, where appropriate, the rules of professional conduct. Key points: - Same numbered form as the Amherst rule - Disclosure covers letters and exhibits - Exhibit certification is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing - Non-compliance may lead to sanctions or a finding of contempt #### Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court for the County of King William - Date on page: ENTER: 6/25/26 - Effective date: 25 June 2026 - Status: 25 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/King_William/local_rule_ai.pdf Entered under Rule 1:15. Generative AI is not prohibited, and use must have human oversight. A written disclosure certification is required for materials drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI. It applies to any filing, pleading, motion, brief, memorandum, sketch order, letter, or other document, including exhibits. Proposed exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, need a certification at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing. Failure to review generative-AI submissions, or other use of AI in research or preparation without proper review, may result in sanctions or contempt. The clerk is directed to send the order to the Middle Peninsula, Colonial, and Williamsburg bar associations. Key points: - Numbered local rule in the same form as the Amherst and Williamsburg rules - Disclosure covers letters and exhibits as well as pleadings and briefs - Exhibit certification is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing - Non-compliance may lead to sanctions or findings of contempt #### Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court of the City of Staunton - Date on page: DATE: 6/25/2026 - Effective date: 25 June 2026 - Status: 25 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/staunton/local_rule_ai.pdf Entered under Rule 1:15. Generative AI is not prohibited. Anyone who submits material drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI must review factual and legal claims, citations, authorities, sources, arguments, and conclusions. A written disclosure certification must be at the end of, or attached to, that material. A certification disclosing generative-AI use in proposed exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing. Filings must be hallucination-free and well grounded under Code § 8.01-271.1(B). Failure to review may lead to sanctions, including those in § 8.01-271.1(D) and Rule 1:5A. Key points: - Written disclosure when generative AI drafts, creates, enhances, or modifies material filed with the court - Separate exhibit certification at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing - The review duty includes keeping the filing hallucination-free - Possible sanctions include Code § 8.01-271.1(D) and Supreme Court Rule 1:5A #### Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court of the City of Waynesboro - Date on page: DATE: 6/25/2026 - Effective date: 25 June 2026 - Status: 25 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Waynesboro/local_rule_ai.pdf Entered under Rule 1:15. The text matches the Staunton generative-AI rule. Use is not prohibited. A written disclosure certification is required for material drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI, and a certification for proposed exhibits is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing. Parties must review filings so they are hallucination-free and well grounded under Code § 8.01-271.1(B). Failure to review may lead to sanctions, including those in § 8.01-271.1(D) and Rule 1:5A. The clerk is directed to send a copy to the Augusta Bar Association. Key points: - Same disclosure and ten-day exhibit certification as the Staunton rule - Filings must be reviewed so they are hallucination-free - Sanctions may include Code § 8.01-271.1(D) and Rule 1:5A - A model certification is attached to the order #### Unpublished public admonishment for nonexistent citations, No. 25-9517 - Type: Judgment - Issuer: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Date on page: Decided: March 11, 2026 - Effective date: 11 March 2026 - Status: 11 March 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-25-09517/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-25-09517-0.pdf The Fourth Circuit's Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline publicly admonished a member of the Fourth Circuit Bar whose principal office is in the District of Columbia. The panel was concerned that briefing cited nonexistent opinions potentially derived from generative AI. The lawyer denied using generative AI. The court said it did not need to decide whether generative AI was used, because citing nonexistent cases seriously interferes with the administration of justice whether or not a generative-AI tool produced them. It found a violation of D.C. Rule 8.4(d) and Fourth Circuit Local Rule 46(g)(1)(c), by clear and convincing evidence, and imposed a public admonishment. The opinion says the facts should remind all members of the Fourth Circuit Bar that citing nonexistent decisions is not permitted. Key points: - Unpublished per curiam public admonishment, decided 11 March 2026, No. 25-9517 - The court did not rest the sanction on a finding that generative AI was used - D.C. Rule 8.4(d) applied because the lawyer's principal office is in the District of Columbia - The opinion says the facts should remind all members of the Fourth Circuit Bar that citing nonexistent decisions is not permitted; it is unpublished and not binding precedent #### Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court for the County of Amherst - Date on page: ENTER: 03/03/2026 - Effective date: 3 March 2026 - Status: 3 March 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/amherst/local_rule_ai.pdf Entered under Rule 1:15. Generative AI is not prohibited. Users are responsible for its limits, and any use must have human oversight. A written disclosure certification is required on materials drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI. That covers any filing, pleading, motion, brief, memorandum, sketch order, letter, or other document, including exhibits. A certification for proposed exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, is due no less than ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing. Under Code § 8.01-271.1(B), submitted materials must be well grounded in fact and warranted by law. Failure to review generative-AI submissions, or other AI-assisted research or preparation without proper review, may result in sanctions or findings of contempt. The model certification includes personal review and compliance with § 8.01-271.1, Rule 1:5, and, where appropriate, the rules of professional conduct. Key points: - AI use is allowed; human review of accuracy is required - The disclosure covers letters as well as pleadings, motions, briefs, and exhibits - Exhibit certification is due at least ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing - Sanctions or contempt may follow a failure to review generative-AI work or other AI research #### Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Circuit Court of the City of Richmond - Date on page: ENTER: 1/13/2026 - Effective date: 13 January 2026 - Status: 13 January 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/richmond/local_rule_artificial_intelligence.pdf Entered under Supreme Court Rule 1:15. AI use is not prohibited. Attorneys and self-represented litigants must put a certification at the end of, or attach it to, filings that disclose the use of AI in any pleading, exhibit to a pleading, memorandum, sketch order, or other filing. They must also file a certification, ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing, disclosing AI use in any proposed exhibit, including a demonstrative exhibit. Parties who use AI must review filings so they are hallucination-free and well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for change. Failure to review a filing drafted, created, enhanced, or modified by generative AI may violate Code § 8.01-271.1(B). A model disclosure is attached. Key points: - Disclosure covers AI use in pleadings, exhibits, memoranda, sketch orders, and other filings - Proposed exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, need a certification ten days before trial or an evidentiary hearing - Review standard is tied to Code § 8.01-271.1(B), including that the filing be hallucination-free - The clerk must post the order, file it with the Executive Secretary, and the court administrator must send it to the Richmond Bar Association #### Rules for Generative AI Use - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Supreme Court of Virginia - Date on page: Effective Date: June 6, 2024; Last Amended: May 7, 2025 - Effective date: 6 June 2024 - Status: 6 June 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.state.va.us/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf These rules apply to people under the Chief Justice's administrative authority as head of the judicial system. They state the only authorised use of generative AI for judicial-system work or on a court-issued device. Users must verify AI content, must not treat it as the sole source, and must complete compliance training before use. Non-vetted tools need supervisory pre-approval where the user has a supervisor, and users must not enter non-public, confidential, personally identifying, or case-related information. DeepSeek is prohibited on court devices and on personal devices used for official business or connected to a judicial network. The rules do not set a filing duty for private advocates. Key points: - Binds judicial-system users and court-issued devices, under Va. Const. art. VI, § 4 - Vetted tools, last updated 14 November 2024, are Lexis+ AI and Westlaw Precision with AI Assisted Research; inclusion is not an endorsement - DeepSeek is banned on court devices and on personal devices used for official business or connected to judicial networks; the rules say this parallels Executive Order 46 (11 February 2025) - Quotes Code § 19.2-11.14(B), effective 1 July 2025, requiring a human decision-maker for listed criminal-process decisions - Incorporated into the Rules of Conduct for Judicial System Employees; improper disclosure is reported to the judicial information-security officer #### Rule 1.1 Comment [6]: competence and relevant technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Supreme Court of Virginia - Date on page: amendments effective March 1, 2016 - Effective date: 1 March 2016 - Status: 1 March 2016; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://vsb.org/Site/Site/about/rules-regulations/rpc-part6-sec2.aspx Comment [6] to Rule 1.1 says a lawyer should continue to study the areas of practice in which the lawyer is engaged, and that attention should be paid to the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. The same comment says the mandatory continuing legal education requirements of the Supreme Court set the minimum standard. This is Virginia's technology-competence comment. The page does not state a separate technology CLE credit. Key points: - Lawyers should pay attention to the benefits and risks of relevant technology - The technology sentence was added by amendments effective 1 March 2016 - Mandatory CLE sets the minimum standard for continuing study - The comment is the Virginia analogue of the ABA Model Rule 1.1 technology comment ### State bar and regulators #### Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable fees and the use of generative artificial intelligence - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Virginia State Bar - Date on page: 24 November 2025 - Effective date: 24 November 2025 - Status: 24 November 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf The Supreme Court of Virginia approved this Virginia State Bar opinion on 24 November 2025, effective immediately. It addresses fees when generative AI, or a comparable tool, makes legal work faster. Hourly fees may be based only on the actual time spent. It is not per se unreasonable to charge the same non-hourly fee for work done with AI as for work done without it. Every Rule 1.5(a) factor still applies, and Rule 1.5(b) requires the basis of the fee to be explained, especially when time on the matter is substantially reduced. Key points: - Hourly and other time-based fees may reflect only actual time spent on the task - A non-hourly fee is not per se unreasonable merely because generative AI was used - Time and labour is one Rule 1.5(a) factor and is not the preeminent factor - The lawyer must explain the basis of the fee, particularly when a tool substantially reduces the time spent - The opinion does not itself require the lawyer to tell the client that AI was used #### Guidance on generative artificial intelligence - Type: Regulator guidance - Issuer: Virginia State Bar - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx The Virginia State Bar ethics page has a section on generative AI for lawyers. It says there is no per se requirement to tell a client that generative AI was used. Disclosure depends on any client agreement or instruction, whether confidential information will be entered, and the risk to the client. A lawyer may not charge an hourly fee above time actually spent and may not bill for time saved by generative AI. The lawyer must review the work, including whether citations are real, and must comply with any court certification under Rule 3.4(d). Key points: - No per se duty to inform the client that generative AI was used - Read the tool's terms before entering confidential information; many free public models may train on inputs - Verify citations and exercise independent judgment; consider a Rule 5.1 firm policy - Do not bill for time saved by generative AI; charge AI costs only if the fee agreement and Rule 1.5 allow, and costs described as costs must be actual - Check whether the court requires a certification and comply with it #### Model Artificial Intelligence Policy for Law Firms, Version 1.0 - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Virginia Bar Association - Date on page: Version 1.0, May 2024 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Version 1.0, May 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.vba.org/docDownload/2672069 The Virginia Bar Association's Special Committee on Small-Firm and Solo Practice published this model for firms to adopt in whole or in part or adapt. The disclaimer says it is not comprehensive, that mentions of the Rules of Professional Conduct are for reference only, and that it is not an ethics opinion. It is aimed at AI use in Virginia practice. It calls for training, independent verification, treatment of most disclosure to an AI tool as a public disclosure unless the tool has been assessed and approved, no client personal information in an open AI environment, firm authorisation before tools are installed, and sample client-consent language. The sample clause is sample language, not a required term. Key points: - Voluntary model only; a firm may adopt it in whole or in part - Not an ethics opinion of the Virginia State Bar - Treat input to an unapproved AI tool as a public disclosure, and do not put client personal information into an open tool - AI output is an initial draft; citations must be cross-checked - Includes optional engagement language consenting to approved technology, including generative AI #### Proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902: duties when opposing counsel fails to review generative AI outputs - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Virginia State Bar - Date on page: May 27, 2026 on the comment notice; draft PDF undated - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/docs/20260527-leo-1902-proposed.pdf This is a draft opinion, not an approved ethics opinion. The Legal Ethics Committee asked for comment by 10 July 2026. The draft says diligence and competence generally require a lawyer to read opposing filings and to bring material misstatements, false quotations, or erroneous citations to the tribunal. Isolated immaterial errors may be left, and the lawyer may contact opposing counsel first. There is no duty to tell the court merely because a filing looks AI-drafted if the assertions are valid. If a court requires an AI certification and the opponent omitted it or misstated it, the lawyer should consider telling the court. A report under Rule 8.3(a) is mandatory only when the lawyer has reliable information of a violation that raises a substantial question of honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Key points: - Draft for public comment only; comments were due 10 July 2026 - Material AI-related errors in an opponent's filing should be raised with the tribunal; minor immaterial errors need not be - Failure to verify AI output before filing may violate Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(c), depending on the facts - Rules 3.4(i), 3.4(j), and 1.6(c)(2) limit bar complaints used for civil advantage, harassment, or disclosure of client confidences - As at 31 October 2026 no approval of this draft was found ### Legislation #### Code § 19.2-11.14: Use of an artificial intelligence-based tool - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Virginia General Assembly - Date on page: 2025, c. 637 - Effective date: 1 July 2025 - Status: 1 July 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/19.2-11.14/ This criminal-procedure section defines an artificial intelligence-based tool as a machine-based system or algorithm, including machine-learning models, predictive analytics, and decision-support systems, that analyses data and generates recommendations or predictions. Decisions on pre-trial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, or rehabilitation must be made by the judicial officer or other person charged with the decision. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker. Use of an AI recommendation or prediction is subject to any challenge or objection the law allows. The section binds those decision-makers. It does not regulate private-firm billing or ordinary civil filings. Key points: - Enacted as 2025, chapter 637 - A human decision-maker must be involved in the listed criminal-process decisions - AI recommendations and predictions may be challenged as the law permits - The Supreme Court's generative-AI rules quote subsection (B) as effective 1 July 2025 ## Sources 19 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: [Standing order on Local Civil Rule 7(E) and artificial intelligence](https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Court of Appeals of Virginia: [LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC, Record No. 1407-25-4](https://www.vacourts.gov/opinions/opncavwp/1407254.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court for the City of Williamsburg and the County of James City: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Williamsburg~James_City_County/local_rule_ai.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court for the County of King William: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/King_William/local_rule_ai.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court of the City of Staunton: [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/staunton/local_rule_ai.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court of the City of Waynesboro: [Local Rule on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/Waynesboro/local_rule_ai.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: [Unpublished public admonishment for nonexistent citations, No. 25-9517](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-25-09517/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-25-09517-0.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court for the County of Amherst: [Local Rule on Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/amherst/local_rule_ai.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Circuit Court of the City of Richmond: [Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/circuit/richmond/local_rule_artificial_intelligence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Virginia: [Rules for Generative AI Use](https://www.courts.state.va.us/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Virginia: [Rule 1.1 Comment 6: competence and relevant technology](https://vsb.org/Site/Site/about/rules-regulations/rpc-part6-sec2.aspx) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Virginia State Bar: [Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable fees and the use of generative artificial intelligence](https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Virginia State Bar: [Guidance on generative artificial intelligence](https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Virginia Bar Association: [Model Artificial Intelligence Policy for Law Firms, Version 1.0](https://www.vba.org/docDownload/2672069) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Virginia State Bar: [Proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902: duties when opposing counsel fails to review generative AI outputs](https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/docs/20260527-leo-1902-proposed.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Virginia General Assembly: [Code § 19.2-11.14: Use of an artificial intelligence-based tool](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/19.2-11.14/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Supreme Court of Virginia](https://www.courts.state.va.us/programs/ai/home) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia](https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/standing-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Virginia State Bar](https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20260527-leo-1902.aspx) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 16 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*