North Dakota

none

Summary

The State Bar Association of North Dakota has issued no formal ethics opinion or task force report on attorney AI use as of April 2026. No statewide court order or D.N.D. local rule addresses AI. The governing framework is composed entirely of existing Rules of Professional Conduct, ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority, and general competence obligations.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.3
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.1
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

North Dakota does not require malpractice insurance. SBAND endorses ALPS. Some carriers (including Berkley) have introduced absolute AI exclusions. Carriers are conducting due diligence on firm AI governance during underwriting; firms without a written AI policy may face higher premiums or coverage conditions.

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.

The State Bar Association of North Dakota has not issued a formal ethics opinion on attorney AI use. SBAND has not addressed whether client consent is required before entering confidential information into an AI tool, what verification duties apply to AI-generated citations, or whether AI use must be disclosed. North Dakota attorneys must reason from general rules and look to ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) as persuasive authority.

The North Dakota Supreme Court has issued no statewide AI standing order, though the court is moving toward AI-generated transcription (ASR) for court records. The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota has not published an AI-specific local rule. North Dakota’s enacted AI legislation (HB 1167 on political advertising disclosure; a 2025 healthcare AI prior-authorization bill) does not touch attorney conduct.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney North Dakota firm: There is no state-specific AI ethics opinion to comply with, but that creates risk rather than relief. North Dakota attorneys are evaluated against existing rules including competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), candor (Rule 3.3), and supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3). A documented firm AI policy is the most protective step available in the current regulatory vacuum.

Last verified: April 23, 2026