Vermont

Does Vermont require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No mandate exists, but Vermont is ahead of most small-bar states. In March 2025, Vermont's AI and Courts Committee issued an annual report assessing AI's impact on the court system. The report provides guidance — not binding rules — on how courts and attorneys should approach generative AI. Vermont is one of the few states where an official committee has studied the issue and published findings, even if those findings stop short of mandatory requirements.

Vermont sits in the Second Circuit with New York and Connecticut, both of which have been significantly more active on AI court policy. With approximately 2,900 active attorneys, Vermont's bar is tiny compared to its circuit peers. But the AI and Courts Committee report shows Vermont's judiciary is paying attention — and that formal rules could follow the guidance phase.

Vermont's AI and Courts Committee Annual Report

In March 2025, Vermont's AI and Courts Committee published an annual report examining generative AI's implications for the state court system. The report addresses AI use by attorneys, court staff, and the judiciary itself. It provides guidance on responsible AI use, highlights risks including hallucinated citations and confidentiality concerns, and recommends practices for attorneys using AI tools. The report is guidance, not a mandate — it doesn't create enforceable disclosure requirements or specific penalties. But it represents an official judicial body's position on AI, which Vermont courts will reference when AI-related issues arise. Attorneys who follow the report's guidance are better positioned than those who ignore it.

What the Committee Recommends vs. What's Required

The distinction between guidance and mandate matters. Vermont's AI and Courts Committee report recommends that attorneys verify AI-generated content, disclose AI use when appropriate, and maintain competent oversight of AI tools. These recommendations align with existing ethics obligations under Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct. But the report doesn't create new procedural requirements — there's no mandatory disclosure form, no certification requirement, no specified penalties for AI-related failures beyond what existing rules already provide. Vermont judges may reference the report's recommendations when evaluating attorney conduct, but the recommendations themselves aren't independently enforceable. The practical effect: following the guidance is strongly advisable, but the binding obligations come from the existing ethics rules.

Vermont's Ethics Framework and AI

Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct are based on the ABA Model Rules. Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) prohibits false statements of law. Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to provide competent representation. Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) creates supervisory obligations for AI tools. The Vermont Professional Responsibility Board enforces these rules. The AI and Courts Committee report reinforces these obligations by specifically noting that AI hallucinations violate existing candor requirements and that competent representation includes understanding AI tool limitations. The report doesn't change the rules — it confirms that they already apply to AI use.

Second Circuit Context for Vermont Practitioners

Vermont's placement in the Second Circuit puts it alongside New York and Connecticut — two states with significantly more AI court activity. New York's federal courts have been among the most active in the country on AI disclosure. Connecticut has seen individual judge activity on AI. The Second Circuit itself hasn't issued circuit-wide AI guidance. The District of Vermont — the state's single federal court — hasn't adopted a local rule on AI disclosure. But the Second Circuit's trajectory is clear: the circuit is moving toward greater AI accountability. Vermont federal practitioners should monitor developments in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York as indicators of where the circuit is heading.

What Vermont Practitioners Should Do Now

Vermont's AI and Courts Committee has done practitioners a favor by publishing clear guidance. Use it. First, implement the report's recommendations as firm policy — require AI verification, documentation, and competent oversight. Even though these are recommendations and not mandates, they represent the Vermont judiciary's expectations. Second, verify every AI-generated citation independently. Third, consider voluntary AI disclosure in filings, especially when appearing before judges who serve on or are aware of the AI and Courts Committee. Fourth, monitor the committee's future publications for movement toward mandatory requirements. Fifth, document your compliance with the committee's guidance — if an AI issue arises, demonstrating that you followed the judiciary's published recommendations is a powerful defense. Vermont has told you what it expects. The firms that listen now will be ahead when expectations become requirements.

The Bottom Line: Vermont hasn't mandated AI disclosure, but the March 2025 annual report from the AI and Courts Committee provides official guidance that Vermont courts will reference. This puts Vermont ahead of most small-bar states. Treat the committee's recommendations as the standard Vermont courts expect, even though they're not yet mandatory. Build your AI protocols around the guidance now — mandatory rules typically follow published guidance by 12 to 24 months.