Bench & Bar May/June 2026

FEATURE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

offending materials cannot be said to be grounded in fact and warranted by exist ing law. While the lawyer submitting such improper materials likely does not intend to harass, cause delay or increase the cost of the litigation, the reality is that the court and opposing counsel will be required to expend resources to address the halluci nated material. Time, effort and expense are required to ferret out such hallucina tions and address them. It only takes a quick search to find a plethora of decisions sanc tioning attorneys for the improper use of AI. Rule 11 may or may not have been the cited basis for the imposition of sanctions, but it certainly provides a basis on which the courts can rely. CONCLUSION The Kentucky Rules of Professional Con duct are fully capable of governing the ethical use of AI. As KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 makes clear, AI does not change what lawyers owe to clients, courts, or the public. Rather, the use of AI heightens the impor tance of those obligations. By grounding AI use in competence (SCR 3.130(1.1)) , confidentiality (SCR 3.130(1.6)) , communication (SCR 3.130(1.4)) , reasonable fees (SCR 3.130(1.5)) , supervision (SCR 3.130(5.1) and (5.3)) , candor (SCR 3.130(3.3)) , and professional integrity (SCR 3.130(8.4)) , Kentucky lawyers can responsibly integrate AI into practice while preserving the profes sion’s core ethical commitments. Used thoughtfully and ethically, AI can enhance, not erode, the quality and integ ANGELA LOGAN EDWARDS is Presi dent & Chief Executive Officer of Lawyers Mutual of Kentucky. Prior to joining Law yers Mutual, she was in private practice and a partner at the Dinsmore & Shohl and Woodward, Hobson & Fulton firms where she practiced in the areas of ERISA/bene fits litigation, commercial litigation law and attorney malpractice defense. Before that, Angela clerked for Hon. Jennifer B. Coff man, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. Edwards received her undergraduate degree from Transylvania University and her law degree from the University of Kentucky. rity of legal representation. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lawyers must ensure that: • AI tools are used in a manner consistent with ethical obliga tions; • Outputs are reviewed and veri fied before use; and • Delegation to AI does not re place professional judgment. KBA E-457 makes clear that lawyers remain fully responsible for all work product , regardless of whether AI assisted in its creation. A failure to supervise AI output adequately may constitute an ethical violation even if no harm results. If you are a managing partner of a firm, you may consider whether the firm needs an Authorized Use Policy (“AUP”) providing guidance and guidelines to coordinate your firm’s consistent ethical use of AI. Consider too whether there is a benefit to systematiz ing the use of AI across all AI users within your firm or organization. MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND DEFENSES Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(3.1) provides that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert and issue, “unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” This particu lar Rule is not cited in KBA E-457, but using hallucinated citations or arguments from AI certainly seems to run afoul of the mandate of SCR 3.130(3.1). Knowing that AI can and does generate incorrect material, failing to verify the AI output, and submitting false arguments and authorities to the Court is NOT the assertion of meritorious claims and defenses. It stands to reason that SCR 3.130(3.1) could certainly be implicated by the misuse of AI technology. CANDOR TO THE TRIBUNAL SCR 3.130(3.3) Kentucky Rule SCR 3.130(3.3)(a) prohibits lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal. Submitting AI-gener ated content without verifying its accuracy, particularly fabricated citations or misstate ments of law, can violate this rule. Courts nationwide have sanctioned

attorneys who filed AI-generated pleadings containing false authorities. In Kentucky, such conduct would implicate: • SCR 3.130(3.3) (candor to the tribunal)

• SCR 3.130(1.1) (competence) • SCR 3.130(5.1) (supervision)

AI does not excuse inaccuracies; it increases the lawyer’s duty to verify. As “location, location, location” is to real estate, “verify, verify, verify” is to the ethical use of AI output.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

CONCERNS SCR 3.130(5.5)

SCR 3.130(5.5) prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. While AI itself is not a lawyer, ethical concerns arise if AI systems provide legal advice directly to clients without meaning ful lawyer involvement. Lawyers must ensure that AI is used as a tool , not as a substitute for legal judgment. Allowing AI to independently advise cli ents or make strategic legal decisions risks violating Rule 5.5 and undermining the lawyer’s professional role. RULE 11 EXPOSURE In addition to the ethical duties discussed herein, a misuse of AI potentially exposes a lawyer to Rule 11 sanctions. Rule 11 pro vides, in pertinent part, that the “signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certifi cation by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” The submission of papers to the courts with hallucinated facts, arguments and/ or authorities have clearly not been read and vetted by the attorney. Likewise, the

14 may/june 2026