Does Arkansas require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No

Does Arkansas require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. Arkansas has no court rule, no standing order, and no formal bar guidance mandating AI disclosure. But the state isn't completely ignoring the issue — a task force has been established to study AI in legal practice, which puts Arkansas in the 'working on it' category rather than the 'not paying attention' category.

For managing partners at Arkansas firms, the task force signals that formal action is coming. The question isn't whether Arkansas will adopt some form of AI guidance — it's what form it takes and how quickly it arrives. Building compliance protocols now means you'll be ready when the task force delivers its recommendations.

The Arkansas AI Task Force: What We Know

Arkansas has established a task force to study AI use in legal practice. This puts the state ahead of the roughly 15-20 states that have taken no formal action at all. Task forces in other states — California, Hawaii, Minnesota — have typically operated for 6-12 months before producing recommendations that lead to formal rules or guidance. Arkansas's small bar (approximately 6,500 active attorneys) means the task force likely involves a relatively small group of practitioners, which can mean faster action or slower momentum depending on the participants' bandwidth. No interim recommendations or draft rules have been publicly released.

Current Rules: What Applies Without an AI-Specific Rule

Arkansas adopted the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which means the same ethical framework that ABA Formal Opinion 512 interprets applies directly. Rule 1.1 (competence) requires Arkansas attorneys to understand any tool they use in practice — including AI's tendency to hallucinate. Rule 3.3 (candor) prohibits submitting fabricated citations regardless of their source. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) restricts inputting client information into AI platforms without adequate safeguards. Rule 5.3 (supervision) makes attorneys responsible for AI outputs as they would be for work by nonlawyer staff. These aren't theoretical — they're enforceable today.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Arkansas Practice

ABA Formal Opinion 512 provides the most relevant guidance for Arkansas practitioners until the task force produces state-specific recommendations. Opinion 512 establishes that competent AI use requires understanding tool limitations, that supervision duties extend to AI outputs, that confidentiality obligations restrict how client data flows through AI platforms, and that verification of AI-generated research is a baseline professional requirement. Because Arkansas follows the Model Rules framework, Opinion 512's interpretations map directly onto Arkansas obligations. It's the closest thing to state-specific AI guidance that Arkansas attorneys have right now.

How Arkansas Compares to Neighboring States

Arkansas occupies a middle position in the region. Missouri has no formal AI rule but has seen federal court orders addressing AI use. Oklahoma hasn't adopted a court rule but its bar has been more active on guidance. Texas has the TRAIGA statute and aggressive federal court orders. Mississippi has no rule but experienced a notable federal court AI incident. Tennessee sits in the Sixth Circuit where AI sanctions cases have made national news. Arkansas's task force puts it ahead of states doing nothing, but behind states that have issued formal guidance or court rules. For firms practicing across state lines — particularly in the Eighth Circuit — tracking neighboring state requirements is essential.

What Arkansas Firms Should Do Before the Task Force Reports

Don't wait for the task force. The ethical obligations already exist — the task force will just make them more explicit. Implement citation verification now: every AI-generated case cite gets checked against Westlaw, Lexis, or the court's own records. Create an AI usage policy for your firm that covers which tools are approved, what client data can be input, and what review processes are required. Document your protocols — when the task force issues recommendations, you want to show your firm was proactive. Train associates and paralegals on AI limitations, particularly hallucination risks. For a small-bar state like Arkansas, the reputational risk of an AI-related sanctions incident is amplified — everyone knows everyone.

The Bottom Line: Arkansas has no AI disclosure rule yet, but an active task force signals formal guidance is coming — build your verification and documentation protocols now using ABA Opinion 512 as your framework, because the ethical obligations already exist under Arkansas's Model Rules.