The State Bar Association of North Dakota has not issued any formal opinion, advisory guidance, or task force report on attorneys' use of artificial intelligence. North Dakota remains one of the silent states — no AI-specific ethics rules, no billing guidance, no confidentiality frameworks tailored to generative AI.
That silence does not mean North Dakota lawyers operate without constraints. The state's adoption of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct means existing obligations around competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), and supervision (Rules 5.1–5.3) all apply to AI use. As neighboring states and federal courts within the Eighth Circuit adopt AI-specific requirements, North Dakota attorneys face growing pressure to self-regulate.
What the Bar Says
Nothing AI-specific. The State Bar Association of North Dakota has not published any formal opinion, informal guidance, CLE advisory, or task force report addressing AI use in legal practice.
North Dakota lawyers must rely on general ethics rules. Rule 1.1 requires competence, which the ABA has interpreted (via Comment 8) to include staying current with technology relevant to practice. Rule 1.6 requires protecting client confidentiality regardless of the tool used. These rules apply to AI by default, but without state-specific interpretation, attorneys must navigate implementation on their own.
Billing Implications
No AI-specific billing guidance exists in North Dakota. Rule 1.5 (reasonable fees) governs all billing, but the state bar has not addressed how AI efficiency gains should be reflected in client invoices.
Look at what states with guidance have established: Florida, New York, and North Carolina all require fees to reflect actual attorney effort when AI accelerates work. North Dakota firms billing pre-AI time estimates for AI-assisted work take on risk as these standards become industry norms.
Confidentiality Rules
No AI-specific confidentiality guidance. General Rule 1.6 obligations apply — attorneys must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information, regardless of the technology used.
In practice, this means North Dakota lawyers should evaluate AI vendor data practices before inputting client information. The absence of state-specific rules does not insulate attorneys from disciplinary action if client data is exposed through an AI tool. The duty of confidentiality is technology-agnostic.
What's Still Unclear
Everything AI-specific remains unclear in North Dakota. There is no guidance on whether AI use must be disclosed to clients, whether court filings require AI attestation, how AI tool costs should appear on invoices, or what level of AI vendor vetting satisfies the duty of competence.
North Dakota is a small-bar state (approximately 2,000 active attorneys), which may explain the slower pace. But federal courts in the District of North Dakota may adopt their own AI disclosure requirements — as courts in other districts have — before the state bar acts. Attorneys should monitor both state and federal developments.
The Bottom Line: North Dakota has no AI-specific ethics guidance — general Rules 1.1, 1.5, and 1.6 apply by default, and attorneys should look to states like North Carolina and New York for emerging 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.