AI Professional Ethics

On April 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an order in White v. Walmart (Case No. 25-cv-01120) sanctioning plaintiff's counsel for relying exclusively on artificial intelligence to identify deficiencies in the defendant's discovery responses. The court held that while AI can serve as a useful tool, it cannot substitute for attorney judgment and does not satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's requirement that parties meet and confer in good faith before escalating discovery disputes.

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model published guidance this week arguing that legal competence with artificial intelligence depends on systemic safeguards built into tools themselves, not training alone. The article, "From Training to Execution: Embedded Safeguards for Responsible AI Use in Legal Practice," contends that safeguards must function reliably during high-pressure scenarios where human oversight falters. Rose Hunter Jones of Hilgers, PLLC has documented a playbook for AI use in eDiscovery and litigation that exemplifies this approach. Thomson Reuters is developing what it calls "fiduciary-grade" AI with built-in accountability mechanisms. The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512, issued in July 2024, requires technological competence under Model Rule 1.1, explicitly extending that duty to AI-specific risks including bias and hallucinations.