--- title: "Washington: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/washington" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-WA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Washington: AI rules for lawyers > Washington: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/washington Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers You may use AI tools, including generative AI. You remain responsible for the work. Understand the tool you use, check the output, and do not file a citation, quotation or legal proposition you have not verified. Do not put information relating to a representation into a consumer AI tool unless confidentiality can reasonably be assured. Read vendor terms, including whether the vendor uses the data to train the tool. Where the information is sensitive, consult the client and, in some cases, get informed consent under RPC 1.6 before you use the tool. There is no statewide rule that you must tell the court you used AI. Lincoln County Superior Court, Clallam County District Court II and Clark County District Court do impose a disclosure or certification duty, with different scopes. Kitsap County and Grays Harbor County superior courts do not require disclosure in the text read; they hold the signer responsible under CR 11 and provide for sanctions where cited authority does not exist. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: depends. No statewide court rule found requires a lawyer to tell the court that AI was used. Lincoln County Superior Court requires a disclosure footnote when a brief or memorandum was materially drafted or supplemented with AI. Clallam County District Court II requires a certification when AI assisted any document or evidence. Clark County District Court requires disclosure for AI-assisted evidence, exhibits and factual material. Pierce County's 2025 every-filing AI certification is not in the rules effective 1 September 2026. Client disclosure/consent: depends. Advisory Opinion 202505 says circumstances dictate the extent and nature of the communication required (the client's needs and expectations, the scope of the representation, the sensitivity of the information). It says the sensitivity of the information may require consultation, and sometimes informed consent under RPC 1.6(a), when the sensitivity of the information or the client's objectives call for it, and it points to the engagement agreement as a place to record that. The WSBA ethics FAQ says lawyers should consult when AI use affects confidentiality or matches the client's preferences. - [Lincoln County Superior Court Local Rules, LCR 7(b)(6)](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/22/SUP/LCR_Lincoln_SUP.pdf) - [LARLJ 49, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/05/DIS/LCR_Clallam_II_DIS.pdf) - [LGR 30.1, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions](https://clark.wa.gov/district-court/lgr-301-use-artificial-intelligence-court-submissions) - [Pierce County Superior Court Local Rules](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/27/SUP/LCR_Pierce_SUP.pdf) - [Compiled 2025 local rule changes, PCLGR 14(e) Artificial Intelligence](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145698/New-PCLGR-14-General-Rule) - [Compiled 2025 local rule changes, PCLER 901(c) Evidence created or modified by artificial intelligence](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145697/New-PCLER-901-Evidence-Rule) - [Advisory Opinion 202505, Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice](https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf) - [Ethics FAQ, artificial intelligence tools](https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/ethics/ethics-faqs) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Washington in the last 12 months - 1 February 2027 · Dated: [Chapter 167, Laws of 2026 (E2SHB 1170): artificial intelligence disclosures and content provenance](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-hb1170-provenance) - 1 January 2027 · Dated: [Chapter 168, Laws of 2026 (ESHB 2225): artificial intelligence companion chatbots](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-hb2225-companion) - 1 September 2026 · Dated: [KCLCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-kitsap-kclcr-11) - 1 September 2026 · Dated: [LCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-grays-harbor-lcr-11) - 1 September 2026 · Dated: [Local rules effective as amended 1 September 2026: no artificial-intelligence text; PCLGR 14 is jury-instruction format](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-pierce-lcr-2026) - 16 July 2026 · Dated: [LGR 30.1: use of artificial intelligence in court submissions](#ai-rule-jr-us-wa-clark-dc-lgr-30-1) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### KCLCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Kitsap County Superior Court - Date on page: 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.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/18/SUP/LCR_Kitsap_SUP.pdf KCLCR 11(a) cautions attorneys and unrepresented litigants not to file a pleading, motion or other paper drafted with generative artificial intelligence without checking it. The signer is responsible for the filing under CR 11 whether or not generative AI drafted any part of it. The rule does not require the filer to tell the court that AI was used. Key points: - Generative AI, with examples including ChatGPT and Harvey.AI, must not replace the lawyer's independent legal judgment. - A pleading that cites caselaw or statutes that do not exist is subject to sanctions if, after notice and a chance to respond, the court finds a CR 11 violation. Sanctions can include non-monetary directives, striking, a penalty payable to the court, or the other side's fees and expenses. - A violation of KCLCR 11(a)(2) by an attorney carries a presumptive sanction of $2,000 per violation, which the court may increase, decrease or waive. The sanction is a judgment against the attorney personally, not the client. #### LCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Grays Harbor County Superior Court - Date on page: Adopted September 1, 2026; book 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.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/14/SUP/LCR_Grays_Harbor_SUP.pdf Grays Harbor LCR 11(d) cautions attorneys and self-represented litigants not to file generative-AI drafting without checking it, and holds the signer responsible under CR 11 whether or not generative AI drafted any part of the paper. The rule does not require disclosure that AI was used. The heading is LCR 11; the presumptive-sanction sentence cites GHLCR 11(c). Key points: - Subsection (d)(i) says generative artificial intelligence should never replace independent legal judgment. Examples given are ChatGPT and Harvey.AI. - Subsection (d)(ii) allows sanctions, after notice and a chance to respond, where a pleading cites caselaw, statutes or other legal authority that does not exist and the court finds a CR 11 violation. - Subsection (d)(iii) states a presumptive sanction of $2,000 per violation of GHLCR 11(c). Subsection (c) is the frivolous-motions provision, not the AI subsection. The penalty may be increased, decreased or waived, and is a judgment against the attorney personally. #### Local rules effective as amended 1 September 2026: no artificial-intelligence text; PCLGR 14 is jury-instruction format - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Pierce County Superior Court - Date on page: Effective as Amended September 1, 2026 - Effective date: 1 September 2026 - Status: 1 September 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/27/SUP/LCR_Pierce_SUP.pdf The Pierce County Superior Court local rules effective as amended 1 September 2026 do not contain the words artificial or generative. In this book, PCLGR 14 is 'Format for pleadings and other papers', and subsection (e) is formatting for jury instructions. That subsection was adopted 1 September 2026. This PDF does not itself say that it repeals any earlier text. Key points: - PCLGR 14(e) in this book covers timing, composition, font, copies, supplemental instructions and electronic working copies for jury instructions. - A search of the extracted text of this rule book found no 'artificial' and no 'generative'. - Subsections (a) to (d) of PCLGR 14 are marked reserved. #### LGR 30.1: use of artificial intelligence in court submissions - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Clark County District Court - Date on page: Adopted July 16, 2026 - Effective date: 16 July 2026 - Status: 16 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://clark.wa.gov/district-court/lgr-301-use-artificial-intelligence-court-submissions LGR 30.1 governs AI use by attorneys and self-represented parties in evidentiary materials submitted to Clark County District Court. Disclosure, by a certification, is required for AI-assisted evidence, exhibits or factual material. The page does not say the rule binds Clark County Superior Court. Key points: - AI-assisted material excludes spelling or grammar checking. AI is defined to include document generation, evidence creation or analysis, and legal research. - The certification must indicate the type of AI used and certify the preparer's final review and approval, and should describe the technology and its role. - Responsibility for accuracy extends to pleadings and citation to legal authorities, not only to the evidence that must be certified. Use of AI does not absolve competence, diligence and supervision. Sanctions may include those under CRLJ 11 and CrRLJ 4.7(g)(7). #### Compiled 2025 local rule changes: PCLER 901(c), evidence created or modified by artificial intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Pierce County Superior Court - Date on page: Effective September 1, 2025 - Effective date: 1 September 2025 - Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145697/New-PCLER-901-Evidence-Rule The 2025 Pierce County compilation set out PCLER 901(c) for evidence created or modified by any type of artificial intelligence. A party offering that evidence had to authenticate it with the material described in ER 901(b)(9), plus a description of the training data and software and a showing that they produced reliable results in that instance. If the output would be an opinion if a person offered it, ER 702 applied. Key points: - The party also had to identify the evidence as AI-created or AI-modified in discovery responses, exhibit lists, ER 904 notices and joint statements of the evidence. - AI means the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behaviour. Generative AI means AI that can generate new content, such as images or text, from a prompt by learning from a large reference database. - Subsections (a) and (b) are marked reserved. The extract is page 32 of 35 of the compiled 2025 changes. #### Compiled 2025 local rule changes: PCLGR 14(e), artificial intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Pierce County Superior Court - Date on page: Effective September 1, 2025 - Effective date: 1 September 2025 - Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145698/New-PCLGR-14-General-Rule The 2025 Pierce County compilation of local rule changes set out PCLGR 14(e) on artificial intelligence. It required a set certification in every pleading or other paper filed with the court. The certification says that if any form of AI was used to create the document, the filer verified that the contents are accurate, and that sanctions under CR 11 may follow if the rule was not followed. Key points: - The certification is required on every pleading or other paper. It does not require the filer to state whether AI was used. It certifies verification if AI was used. - AI means the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behaviour. Generative AI means AI that can generate new content, such as images or text, from a prompt by learning from a large reference database. - Subsections (a) to (d) of PCLGR 14 are marked reserved in this extract. The extract is page 1 of the compiled 2025 changes. #### LARLJ 49: use of artificial intelligence in court submissions - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Clallam County District Court II - Date on page: Adopted effective September 1, 2025 - Effective date: 1 September 2025 - Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/05/DIS/LCR_Clallam_II_DIS.pdf LARLJ 49 requires attorneys and parties to disclose AI assistance in any document or evidence submitted to Clallam County District Court II. Disclosure is by a certification attached at the time of submission. The rule's purpose section limits it to materials submitted to that court. Key points: - AI-assisted material means any document or evidence prepared with AI. The definition of AI includes document generation, evidence creation or analysis, and legal research. Spelling and grammar checkers are not excluded in the text. - The certification must indicate the type of AI used and certify the attorney's final review and approval. It should also include a general description of the technology and its role. - The filer remains responsible for accuracy, relevance and appropriateness, and must review the material. Use of AI does not absolve the duties of competence, diligence and supervision. Violations may lead to sanctions, including under CrRLJ 4.7(g)(7). #### LCR 7(b)(6): use of artificial intelligence in legal briefing - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Lincoln County Superior Court - Date on page: Amended September 1, 2025; rules effective September 1, 2025 - Effective date: 1 September 2025 - Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/22/SUP/LCR_Lincoln_SUP.pdf Lincoln County Superior Court LCR 7(b)(6) requires a disclosure footnote when a brief or memorandum submitted to that court was materially drafted or supplemented with artificial intelligence tools. The footnote must identify the portion. If the whole document was prepared that way, the footnote goes on the first page. The rule says it neither encourages nor discourages AI use. Key points: - The duty is limited to a legal brief or memorandum that was materially drafted or supplemented with AI tools. It is not a ban, and it does not on its face cover every paper filed in the case. - AI tools are defined as software or a platform that generates, drafts or significantly assists in drafting legal text through machine learning, natural language processing or other automated content creation. - The stated purpose is transparency about the methods used to create the submitted materials. #### BJA AI Statement of Principles - Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline - Issuer: Board for Judicial Administration - Date on page: Approved: February 21, 2025 - Effective date: 21 February 2025 - Status: 21 February 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_bja/BJA%20AI%20Statement%20of%20Principles.pdf The Board for Judicial Administration's two-page statement says the Washington judiciary will work with others on a framework for new technology that advances access to justice, avoids compounding bias, safeguards privacy and security, and upholds the rule of law. It says technology is not a substitute for human judgment. It is not a filing or disclosure rule for lawyers. Key points: - Judicial officers who use AI must still use independent judgment and comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct. - Courts must protect personal information and data in their systems. - The statement recognises that AI may require adjustments to court rules and practices, and says the judiciary will engage with justice partners on standards and guidelines. #### RPC 1.1, Comment 8: competence and relevant technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Washington Supreme Court - Date on page: Renumbered to 8 and Amended effective September 1, 2016 - Effective date: 1 September 2016 - Status: 1 September 2016; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/RPC/GA_RPC_01_01_00.pdf Comment 8 to RPC 1.1 says that, to maintain the knowledge and skill the rule requires, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with the continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. The comment applies to lawyers. It does not mention artificial intelligence. Key points: - The duty is phrased as 'should keep abreast', including the benefits and risks of relevant technology. - It also points lawyers to the CLE requirements that already apply to them. It does not create a separate AI training mandate. - The rule text of RPC 1.1 itself requires competent representation: the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. ### State bar and regulators #### Advisory Opinion 202505: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics - Date on page: Year Issued: 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Year Issued: 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf Advisory Opinion 202505 says Washington lawyers may use AI tools, including generative, agentic and consumer tools, and remain responsible for the work under RPCs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3. It applies to lawyers using those tools in practice. It is an advisory opinion for the education of the Bar: issued under Board of Governors authorisation, not individually approved by the Board, and not the official position of the Bar. Key points: - Competence and diligence: understand the specific tool and its contractual terms. A vendor's offer of confidentiality is not enough unless the terms meet RPC 1.6. Revisit that review as the product changes. The lawyer, not the tool, is responsible for the work, including the effect of training data. Efficiency does not replace verification. - Confidentiality: the RPCs do not prohibit consumer tools. Where protection of client confidential information cannot reasonably be assured, lawyers should not use consumer-oriented AI tools. Check whether the vendor uses inputs for another purpose, such as training. An incognito setting may not preserve confidentiality. Sensitive information may require consultation and, in some cases, informed consent under RPC 1.6(a). - Communication: adopting ABA Formal Opinion 512, the opinion says circumstances dictate the extent and nature of the communication required, including the client's needs and expectations, the scope of the representation and the sensitivity of the information. Where a discussion is warranted, an engagement agreement is a logical place to record it. For chatbot intake, consider a disclaimer that no lawyer-client relationship exists until one is formed. - Candor: RPC 3.3(a)(1) prohibits a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, defined in RPC 1.0A(m) to include courts, arbitrations and administrative proceedings. If a court's rules require disclosure of AI use, RPC 3.4(c) generally requires the lawyer to follow that rule. - Supervision and fees: train lawyers and nonlawyers who use AI on client work, and assess vendor safeguards. An illustration calls a written AI-use policy and regular training best practice. RPC 5.3 covers human nonlawyers, including vendors; purely technological virtual assistants are left to the duties of competence and confidentiality unless the rule is amended. Charge for time spent using the tool, including prompts and review. Do not charge for time saved. Explain the basis of fees and expenses at the outset. Overhead may be absorbed or billed as an agreed expense; a per-use cost should be explained and consented to. #### Board of Governors meeting recap, 24–25 July 2026: proposed RPC commentary on artificial intelligence - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Washington State Bar Association, Board of Governors - Date on page: July 24-25, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://wsba.org/docs/default-source/about-wsba/governance/bog-meeting-recaps/july2026-bog_recap.pdf?sfvrsn=2f4e1f1_3 The July 2026 Board of Governors recap says the Board approved a Committee on Professional Ethics proposal that the WSBA serve as co-proponent, with the Washington Supreme Court Clerk, in submitting commentary on the legal ethics of artificial intelligence. The commentary is to RPCs 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8. The recap does not set out the comment text and does not state that the Supreme Court has adopted it. Key points: - The recap says the comments are meant to assist lawyers in the responsible and ethical use of AI, covering use, disclosure, firm policymaking and supervision, fees, bias, and accurate review. - The drafts were initially developed by the Court, then refined by the Clerk and the Committee on Professional Ethics. The recap points to page 99 of the meeting materials for the text. - This is a Board decision to join a submission. It is not itself a court rule. #### Ethics FAQ: ethical rules when using artificial intelligence tools - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Washington State Bar Association - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/ethics/ethics-faqs The WSBA ethics FAQ restates Advisory Opinion 202505 for lawyers using AI tools. It says the duties stay the same as the tools change, and it points to RPC 1.1 Comment 8. It is a short web answer, not a new ethics opinion. Key points: - It lists seven rules: competence (RPC 1.1), diligence (RPC 1.3), confidentiality (RPC 1.6), communication (RPC 1.4), candor (RPC 3.3), supervision (RPCs 5.1 and 5.3), and billing (RPC 1.5). - On consent, it says lawyers should consult clients about AI use when it affects confidentiality or aligns with client preferences, and that consent may be documented in engagement agreements. - On billing, it says lawyers cannot charge for time saved by AI efficiency. Billing must reflect actual time spent using AI tools or agreed expenses. Cost may be absorbed as overhead or billed as an expense, and either method must comply with RPC 1.5. ### Legislation #### Chapter 167, Laws of 2026 (E2SHB 1170): artificial intelligence disclosures and content provenance - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Washington Legislature - Date on page: EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 2027; Approved by the Governor March 24, 2026 - Effective date: 1 February 2027 - Status: 1 February 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1170-S2.SL.pdf Chapter 167, Laws of 2026, requires a covered provider, where commercially and technically reasonable, to embed provenance data in covered image, audio or video content created or materially altered by its generative AI system. A covered provider produces a generative AI system with over 1,000,000 monthly users that is publicly accessible in Washington to consumers for personal use. State, local and tribal governments are not covered providers. The act is not a rule about lawyers' court filings. Key points: - For this chapter, generative artificial intelligence means technology used to generate images, audio or video. It is not defined as text-only generation. - Business-to-business uses, sales, licensing and distribution are excluded. The provider chapter does not require disclosure of a trade secret. A waiver of the chapter is void. Only the Attorney General may bring a Consumer Protection Act action under section 4. - Section 6, a new chapter in Title 42 RCW, requires a government agency that offers an AI system to interact with consumers to disclose that fact, clearly and in plain language, before or at the time of the interaction. Sections 1 to 5 and 9 are a new chapter in Title 19 RCW. - Passed by the Senate on 4 March 2026 and by the House on 11 March 2026. Approved 24 March 2026. Effective 1 February 2027. #### Chapter 168, Laws of 2026 (ESHB 2225): artificial intelligence companion chatbots - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Washington Legislature - Date on page: EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2027; Approved by the Governor March 24, 2026 - Effective date: 1 January 2027 - Status: 1 January 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2225-S.SL.pdf Chapter 168, Laws of 2026, regulates an operator who makes an AI companion chatbot available to users in Washington. The operator must disclose that the chatbot is not human, at the start of the interaction and at least every three hours, and must stop the chatbot claiming to be human. The act adds a chapter to Title 19 RCW. It does not say that every law-firm software tool is covered or excluded. Key points: - An AI companion chatbot is an AI system with a natural language interface that gives adaptive, human-like responses, shows anthropomorphic features, and can sustain a relationship across multiple interactions. - A bot used only for a business's operations, productivity and analysis, internal research, technical assistance or customer service is outside the definition 'if such bot does not sustain a relationship across multiple interactions and generate outputs that are likely to elicit emotional responses in the user' (statutory wording). A 'user' is a natural person interacting with the chatbot for personal use. Video-game, speaker-assistant and narrow school tools have their own exclusions. - If the operator knows the user is a minor, or the chatbot is directed at minors, disclosure is at the start and at least every hour, and the operator must limit sexual content and listed manipulative engagement techniques. A minor is a person under 18. - The operator must keep a protocol for suicidal ideation or self-harm, including eating disorders, refer users to crisis resources, and publicly disclose the protocol and the number of crisis-referral notifications in the preceding calendar year. Section 6 says a violation is an unfair or deceptive act for purposes of applying the Consumer Protection Act. The act does not say who may sue. ## Sources 18 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - Kitsap County Superior Court: [KCLCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/18/SUP/LCR_Kitsap_SUP.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Grays Harbor County Superior Court: [LCR 11: signing and drafting of pleadings, motions and legal memoranda](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/14/SUP/LCR_Grays_Harbor_SUP.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Pierce County Superior Court: [Local rules effective as amended 1 September 2026: no artificial-intelligence text; PCLGR 14 is jury-instruction format](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/27/SUP/LCR_Pierce_SUP.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Clark County District Court: [LGR 30.1: use of artificial intelligence in court submissions](https://clark.wa.gov/district-court/lgr-301-use-artificial-intelligence-court-submissions) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Pierce County Superior Court: [Compiled 2025 local rule changes: PCLER 901(c), evidence created or modified by artificial intelligence](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145697/New-PCLER-901-Evidence-Rule) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Pierce County Superior Court: [Compiled 2025 local rule changes: PCLGR 14(e), artificial intelligence](https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/145698/New-PCLGR-14-General-Rule) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Clallam County District Court II: [LARLJ 49: use of artificial intelligence in court submissions](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/05/DIS/LCR_Clallam_II_DIS.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Lincoln County Superior Court: [LCR 7(b)(6): use of artificial intelligence in legal briefing](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/LCR/22/SUP/LCR_Lincoln_SUP.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Board for Judicial Administration: [BJA AI Statement of Principles](https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_bja/BJA%20AI%20Statement%20of%20Principles.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington Supreme Court: [RPC 1.1, Comment 8: competence and relevant technology](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/RPC/GA_RPC_01_01_00.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics: [Advisory Opinion 202505: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice](https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington State Bar Association, Board of Governors: [Board of Governors meeting recap, 24–25 July 2026: proposed RPC commentary on artificial intelligence](https://wsba.org/docs/default-source/about-wsba/governance/bog-meeting-recaps/july2026-bog_recap.pdf?sfvrsn=2f4e1f1_3) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington State Bar Association: [Ethics FAQ: ethical rules when using artificial intelligence tools](https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/ethics/ethics-faqs) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington Legislature: [Chapter 167, Laws of 2026 (E2SHB 1170): artificial intelligence disclosures and content provenance](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1170-S2.SL.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Washington Legislature: [Chapter 168, Laws of 2026 (ESHB 2225): artificial intelligence companion chatbots](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2225-S.SL.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Washington Supreme Court / Washington State Courts](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.ruleorderpage) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [King County Superior Court](https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/lcr/17/SUP/LCR_King_SUP.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Washington State Legislature](https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=6284&Chamber=Senate&Year=2025) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 15 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*