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

Does Delaware require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. Delaware has no court rule mandating AI disclosure — not in the Court of Chancery, not in the Superior Court, not anywhere in the state system. But Delaware isn't asleep on this. The Commission on Law and Technology has expanded its scope to cover AI, signaling that formal guidance is in development.

For corporate litigators, this matters more than it might seem. Delaware's Court of Chancery handles a disproportionate share of the nation's highest-stakes corporate disputes. M&A litigation, fiduciary duty claims, stockholder appraisals — these cases involve massive document volumes and complex legal analysis where AI tools are increasingly deployed. The absence of a disclosure rule doesn't mean the Chancery judges aren't paying attention.

The Commission on Law and Technology's Expanded AI Mandate

Delaware's Commission on Law and Technology, originally focused on broader legal technology issues, has expanded its mandate to include artificial intelligence in legal practice. This isn't a new task force created from scratch — it's an existing body with institutional credibility and established relationships with the Delaware judiciary. The commission's work suggests that any AI guidance Delaware produces will be thoughtful and informed by existing technology governance experience. No draft rules or interim recommendations have been publicly released, but the commission's involvement means formal action is more likely than in states with no institutional mechanism studying the issue.

The Court of Chancery Factor

Delaware's Court of Chancery is arguably the most influential business court in the country. It handles corporate governance disputes, M&A challenges, and fiduciary duty litigation involving companies worth billions. The five chancellors and vice chancellors who sit on this court have enormous influence over corporate law nationally. AI tools are increasingly used in the document-intensive, precedent-heavy work that characterizes Chancery practice. While no Chancery-specific AI rule exists, the court's sophisticated bench is likely to have strong views about AI-generated filings. An AI hallucination in a Chancery brief wouldn't just be a local problem — it would make national legal news and potentially prompt immediate rulemaking.

Existing Delaware Ethics Rules and AI

Delaware's Rules of Professional Conduct follow the ABA Model Rules framework. Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), and Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) all apply to AI use. The Delaware State Bar has an active Office of Disciplinary Counsel that enforces these rules. ABA Formal Opinion 512's interpretation of these duties in the AI context provides the most relevant guidance for Delaware practitioners. The competence requirement is especially significant in Delaware corporate practice, where the accuracy of citations and the precision of legal analysis directly affect outcomes in high-dollar disputes.

How Delaware Compares to Neighboring Jurisdictions

Delaware's neighbors have taken different approaches. New Jersey has been among the more active states on AI disclosure requirements. Pennsylvania has addressed AI through both state and federal court channels. Maryland has a Standing Committee recommendation to amend Rule 1-311 for AI hallucinations — the closest neighbor to formal rulemaking. New York, while not a geographic neighbor, is the jurisdiction most Delaware corporate practitioners also practice in, and its federal courts have been aggressive on AI disclosure. Delaware's commission-based approach is more measured than some of these jurisdictions, but the gap creates compliance complexity for the many firms that practice across Delaware, New York, and New Jersey.

Compliance Strategy for Delaware Practitioners

Given Delaware's outsized role in corporate litigation, the compliance bar should be high. For Chancery practice specifically: verify every case citation against official reporters, document your AI usage and review processes, and consider voluntary disclosure if AI tools played a substantial role in drafting or analysis. For general Delaware practice: follow ABA Opinion 512 as your minimum standard, implement firm-wide verification protocols, and train all attorneys on AI tool limitations. For multi-jurisdictional firms: build to the strictest standard you encounter across Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and apply that standard uniformly. The reputational risk of an AI incident in Chancery Court is too high to cut corners.

The Bottom Line: Delaware has no AI disclosure rule, but the Commission on Law and Technology is actively studying the issue — and given the Court of Chancery's outsized national importance in corporate litigation, practitioners should maintain the highest verification standards for any AI-assisted work.