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

Does Massachusetts require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. The Supreme Judicial Court issued Interim Guidelines in late 2025 addressing AI in court operations, but they apply to court staff only. The SJC explicitly concluded that existing professional conduct rules are sufficient to govern attorney AI use — no new attorney disclosure requirements were recommended.

This is a considered position, not an oversight. Massachusetts reviewed the AI landscape, evaluated whether attorneys needed new obligations, and decided the answer was no. For managing partners in the Commonwealth, this means your compliance burden is lighter than in states with affirmative disclosure mandates — but your existing ethical duties haven't changed.

What the SJC Interim Guidelines Cover

The Supreme Judicial Court's Interim Guidelines, issued in late 2025, address how court staff and judicial operations should interact with AI technology. The guidelines cover permissible uses of AI in court administration, requirements for human oversight, data security considerations, and transparency standards when AI influences court processes. They're designed to ensure that AI in court operations enhances rather than undermines the integrity of the judicial system. They do not create new obligations for attorneys or litigants.

Why Massachusetts Chose Not to Regulate Attorney AI Use

The SJC's decision was deliberate. After reviewing developments across other jurisdictions, the court concluded that Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct already address the core risks of attorney AI use. Rule 1.1 (competence) requires lawyers to understand the tools they use. Rule 3.3 (candor) prohibits submitting false information to tribunals. Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision) cover delegation of tasks to AI-assisted workflows. The SJC reasoned that layering additional AI-specific rules would add procedural complexity without meaningfully improving attorney accountability.

The Existing Rules That Govern Attorney AI Use

Massachusetts attorneys using AI are governed by the same professional conduct rules that apply to all legal work. Competence means understanding AI's limitations — including hallucination risks. Candor means verifying every AI-generated citation and factual claim before submitting it to a court. Confidentiality means ensuring client data isn't exposed through AI tool usage. Supervision means lawyers are responsible for AI outputs the same way they're responsible for work product from associates and paralegals. These aren't new interpretations — they're direct applications of existing doctrine.

How Massachusetts Differs from Federal Courts in the State

Federal courts in Massachusetts haven't necessarily followed the SJC's lead. The District of Massachusetts (the state's sole federal district court) has seen individual judges issue standing orders addressing AI use in filings. These orders may require disclosure, certification, or both — depending on the judge. The state-federal split creates compliance complexity for Boston-area firms that regularly file in both systems. A motion filed in Suffolk County Superior Court requires no AI disclosure; the same motion filed in the Moakley Courthouse might require a certification paragraph.

Practical Steps for Massachusetts Attorneys

Even without mandatory disclosure, Massachusetts attorneys should build AI competence into their practice. Implement a citation verification protocol for any filing that involved AI tools. Train associates on AI hallucination risks and the specific professional conduct rules that apply. Maintain an internal log of AI tool usage — not because any rule requires it, but because it demonstrates competence and diligence if questions arise. Monitor the SJC and Board of Bar Overseers for any updates — the 'interim' label on the guidelines signals that the conversation isn't over. And always check for individual judge standing orders in federal court.

The Bottom Line: Massachusetts's SJC Interim Guidelines govern court staff only — the court explicitly found existing professional conduct rules sufficient for attorneys, so there's no AI disclosure mandate, but competence and candor duties still require rigorous verification of AI outputs.