North Carolina

Does North Carolina require attorneys to disclose AI use in state court filings? No. North Carolina has no court disclosure mandate. What it does have is substantive ethics guidance: the North Carolina State Bar issued 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, addressing attorney competency and vendor vetting obligations when using AI tools. It's an ethics-first approach — no filing checkbox, but clear expectations about how attorneys must handle AI in their practice.

For managing partners at North Carolina firms, the Formal Ethics Opinion is binding guidance from the State Bar. It doesn't require you to tell the court you used AI, but it requires you to be competent in using it and diligent in vetting the vendors who provide it. Violating those obligations triggers the same disciplinary process as any other ethics breach.

NC Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: The Details

The North Carolina State Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 is one of the most detailed state bar AI ethics opinions in the country. It addresses two core obligations: competency in AI use and vendor vetting. On competency, the opinion requires attorneys to understand how generative AI tools work, recognize their limitations (including hallucination risks), and verify all AI-generated output before relying on it. On vendor vetting, attorneys must evaluate AI tool providers' data handling practices, security protocols, and terms of service — particularly regarding client confidentiality. The opinion applies the existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI contexts without creating new rules.

Competency Requirements Under the Ethics Opinion

The competency component of the Formal Ethics Opinion goes beyond 'check your citations.' North Carolina attorneys must understand the fundamental operation of AI tools they use — how they generate responses, what training data limitations exist, and where hallucination risks are highest. Attorneys who use AI tools they don't understand violate Rule 1.1 (Competence). The opinion effectively creates a continuing education obligation: as AI tools evolve, attorneys must maintain current knowledge of their capabilities and limitations. Delegating AI use to paralegals or associates doesn't relieve the supervising attorney of the competency obligation.

Vendor Vetting: North Carolina's Unique Emphasis

The vendor vetting component sets North Carolina apart from most state bar guidance. Attorneys must evaluate AI vendors' data handling practices before using their tools on client matters. This means reviewing terms of service, understanding whether client data is used for model training, confirming data security certifications, and assessing vendor reliability. The opinion treats AI vendor selection as an ethical obligation — not a procurement decision. An attorney who inputs client data into an AI tool without vetting the vendor's data practices violates Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality). This has practical implications: firms need documented vendor assessment processes, not just software subscriptions.

Federal Courts in North Carolina vs. State Ethics Approach

North Carolina's three federal districts — Eastern (Raleigh), Middle (Greensboro), and Western (Charlotte) — have individual judges who've addressed AI through standing orders. These federal orders focus on filing disclosure — telling the court when AI was used. North Carolina's state approach focuses on how attorneys use AI, not on disclosure. The two frameworks are complementary: federal courts tell you to disclose, the state bar tells you to be competent and vet your vendors. An attorney could comply with every federal disclosure order and still violate the state ethics opinion if they're using AI tools they don't understand or haven't vetted.

Compliance Strategy for North Carolina Firms

The ethics opinion creates concrete obligations. First, ensure every attorney using AI tools can articulate how those tools work, what their limitations are, and where hallucination risks exist — this is the competency requirement. Second, build a formal vendor vetting process: document your evaluation of every AI tool's data handling, security, and terms of service before deploying it on client matters. Third, create written AI usage policies that align with the Formal Ethics Opinion's requirements. Fourth, implement supervision protocols — the opinion makes clear that supervising attorneys bear responsibility for associates' and paralegals' AI use. Fifth, even though no court disclosure rule exists, consider voluntary disclosure as a practice — it demonstrates the competence and transparency the ethics opinion demands.

The Bottom Line: North Carolina has no court AI disclosure mandate, but the NC Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 creates binding obligations around AI competency and vendor vetting. It's an ethics-first approach: no filing checkbox, but clear requirements that carry disciplinary consequences.