The Hawaii State Bar Association has not issued any formal opinion or guidance on attorneys using generative AI. As of early 2026, Hawaii remains one of the silent states — no advisory opinion, no task force report, no AI-specific ethics rules on the books.
That silence does not mean safety. Hawaii attorneys are still bound by the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct, and every core obligation — competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), supervision (Rules 5.1/5.3), and candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3) — applies to AI use. The lack of specific guidance means firms must self-regulate using the growing body of opinions from states like California, Florida, and New York as practical benchmarks.
What the Bar Says
Nothing. The Hawaii State Bar Association has issued no formal opinion, advisory guidance, or task force report on generative AI use by attorneys. There are no pending proposals or public comment periods on AI ethics as of early 2026.
This puts Hawaii behind more than 20 states that have issued some form of AI guidance. The state's general ethics framework still governs, but attorneys get no AI-specific direction on disclosure, billing, or data handling.
Billing Implications
Hawaii has issued no guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work. Rule 1.5 (Fees) requires that all fees be reasonable, which is the only guardrail.
In practice, the trend from states with opinions is clear: you cannot bill AI processing time at attorney hourly rates. Firms using AI in Hawaii should proactively adjust billing to reflect efficiency gains. When a brief that took 6 hours now takes 2 with AI assistance, billing 6 hours creates exposure — even without a Hawaii-specific rule prohibiting it.
Confidentiality Rules
No AI-specific confidentiality guidance exists from the Hawaii bar. Rule 1.6 still requires attorneys to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information.
This means before using any AI tool with client data, Hawaii attorneys must evaluate how that tool stores, processes, and potentially trains on input data. Consumer-grade AI tools like free ChatGPT, which may retain and use input data, present clear confidentiality risks. Enterprise AI platforms with BAA/DPA agreements and data isolation are the safer path.
What's Still Unclear
Almost everything specific to AI remains unclear in Hawaii. Key open questions include: whether courts will adopt AI disclosure requirements for filings, whether the bar will follow the majority trend of issuing formal guidance, and how the bar would handle a grievance involving AI-generated errors.
The biggest gap is the absence of any safe harbor framework. Attorneys who adopt AI responsibly have no formal protection for doing so, and attorneys who use it recklessly face discipline only under general rules that were not written with AI in mind. Hawaii attorneys should watch the ABA's ongoing AI guidance as a minimum standard.
The Bottom Line: Hawaii has zero AI-specific ethics guidance — attorneys must rely on general ethics rules and look to leading states for practical standards.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.