Massachusetts

none

Summary

Massachusetts has two BBO educational articles (no formal opinion numbers), SJC Interim Guidelines for court personnel (December 2025), a Standing Advisory Committee finding that existing RPC rules are sufficient (late 2025), and two documented Superior Court sanctions cases for AI hallucinations (Smith v. Farwell, February 2024, $2,000 fine; Dastou v. Holmes, June 2025, mandatory MCLE). No formal ethics opinion exists. No court-wide AI disclosure requirement exists for Massachusetts state court filings or in D. Mass. federal court.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.4
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions fall on counsel personally and are generally not covered by standard LPL policies. Client data entered into AI tools without adequate security is a potential Ch. 93H violation triggering breach notification obligations; resulting breaches may not be covered under standard LPL policies and may require separate cyber coverage.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Massachusetts has no formal numbered ethics opinion on attorney AI use. Two BBO Office of Bar Counsel practice articles (“The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence” by Afton Pavletic, 2024; and a 2025 article by Heather L. LaVigne on escalating sanctions) are educational rather than binding. The SJC Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct found in late 2025 that existing rules provide “ample guidance” and recommended no amendments, meaning the existing competence, confidentiality, and supervision framework has applied all along.

Two Superior Court sanctions cases anchor the enforcement landscape. In Smith v. Farwell (Norfolk Superior Court, February 2024), Justice Brian A. Davis sanctioned counsel $2,000 under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 for filing memoranda containing fictitious AI-generated citations. In Dastou v. Holmes (Middlesex Superior Court, June 2025), Justice Keren E. Goldenberg ordered mandatory MCLE and prohibited billing for defective AI-assisted jury instructions. The April 2024 AG Advisory also applies Ch. 93A and Ch. 93H/201 CMR 17.00 data security obligations to law firms handling client data through AI tools.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Massachusetts firm: The sanctions pattern is clear: two Superior Court cases in 15 months, both for submitting AI-generated content without verification. The “no amendments needed” committee finding means existing rules apply now, without a grace period.

Last verified: April 23, 2026