Alabama State Bar Releases Ethical AI Use Guidance

The Alabama State Bar recently released updated guidance on the ethical use of artificial intelligence. While the guidance does not create any new ethics rules, it explains how lawyers’ existing professional responsibilities apply to AI tools that are now part of everyday legal practice. Here are a few key takeaways.

Does the AI Ethical Guidance Create New Duties?

No. The Alabama State Bar makes clear that AI “recontextualizes” lawyers’ existing obligations under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct (ARPC) rather than creating new ones. Lawyers must have a reasonable understanding of what an AI tool does, what it cannot do, and how its outputs can fail. Those responsibilities fall squarely within a lawyer’s duty of competence.

Why Is Output Verification the Most Important Rule?

Virtually every set of AI ethics guidance reaches the same conclusion: AI-generated output should never be accepted at face value. By now, most lawyers are familiar with Mata v. Avianca, the widely publicized case in which an attorney filed a brief containing fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT. Alabama now has its own cautionary example. Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and imposed more than $17,000 in sanctions after an attorney submitted a brief that relied on AI-generated, nonexistent legal authority. (See Ibach v. Stewart).

Whether appearing before a court or advising a board of directors, lawyers independently review AI-generated work and exercise their own legal judgment. That includes verifying citations, legal authorities, and legal conclusions against reliable legal research sources before submitting a filing or presenting advice to a decision-maker.

Who Is Responsible When AI Gets It Wrong?

Ultimately, the lawyer is.

The guidance treats AI much like a non-lawyer assistant. Supervising lawyers remain fully responsible for AI-assisted work product, including work generated by a paralegal, legal assistant, or staff member using AI.

Law firms and legal departments should implement written AI-use policies, designate individuals to evaluate and approve AI tools, and ensure that no AI-generated work reaches a client, court, or executive leadership without a lawyer’s independent review.

How Should Alabama AI Ethical Guidance Inform Business Practices?

Although the guidance is directed at practicing lawyers, the same ethical principles provide a practical framework for governing AI within legal departments. Key areas of focus include:

• Vendor diligence – Before entering into an agreement with an AI vendor, evaluate the tool’s accuracy, security, and data retention practices. Determine whether the vendor may use your organization’s prompts or data to train its models.
• Data governance – Treat employee, customer, and other sensitive business information with the same care lawyers owe to client information. Free consumer AI tools should be closely monitored or prohibited for work involving confidential or sensitive data.
• Written AI-use policies – Clearly identify approved AI tools, permissible use, and employee responsibilities.
• Human checkpoints on agentic AI and all AI Output – If the organization deploys autonomous AI systems, such as customer service agents, automated approval systems, or workflow tools, build documented human review into the process and regularly audit system activity, including what internal data AI systems can independently access.
• Document AI use in decision-making – For significant business decisions supported by AI, document the tool used, the prompt, the task performed, and the verification process. Prompts, drafts, and interaction logs may later become subject to regulatory review, litigation holds, discovery, or audits, making thorough documentation an important risk-management practice.

The common thread running through the guidance, recent sanctions, and these recommended business practices is straightforward: AI can make legal departments more efficient and effective, but accountability remains with people, not technology.

Organizations that build these guardrails with clear AI policies will be better positioned to realize AI’s benefits while managing legal and ethical risk.