Virginia

Does Virginia require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No — but Virginia took a different path than most states. HB1642, effective July 2025, is a statute requiring human oversight of AI in government operations, including courts. It's legislative action, not a court rule. Virginia also created a dedicated AI program page, signaling serious institutional investment in AI governance.

The distinction matters for managing partners. Virginia didn't regulate attorney filings directly. Instead, it built a statutory framework focused on human oversight of AI across government functions — which includes the judiciary. Your disclosure obligation hasn't changed, but the institutional infrastructure around AI in Virginia courts is more developed than in most states.

What HB1642 Requires

HB1642, signed into law and effective July 2025, mandates human oversight of artificial intelligence used in Virginia government operations. For the court system, this means any AI tool used in judicial decision-making, case management, or court administration must have a human review component. The statute doesn't specifically address attorney filings or create a disclosure mandate for practicing lawyers. Its focus is on ensuring that government entities — including courts — maintain meaningful human control over AI-assisted processes.

Virginia's AI Program and Institutional Infrastructure

Virginia established a dedicated AI program page and governance structure that goes beyond a simple court rule. This infrastructure includes oversight mechanisms, reporting requirements, and accountability frameworks for AI deployment across the judicial branch. The program represents a more systematic approach than the one-off standing orders seen in many other states. For attorneys, the practical implication is that Virginia courts are actively thinking about AI and building the administrative capacity to regulate it more comprehensively in the future.

Why There's No Statewide Attorney Disclosure Rule

Virginia's approach has been statutory rather than through court rulemaking. HB1642 addresses government AI use broadly, but the Virginia Supreme Court hasn't adopted rules specifically requiring attorney AI disclosure. The Virginia State Bar's ethics opinions and existing Rules of Professional Conduct are considered the governing framework for attorney AI use. As in many states, the duties of competence, candor, and supervision are treated as sufficient to cover AI-assisted legal work without AI-specific amendments.

How Virginia Differs from Federal Courts in the State

Federal courts in Virginia have taken their own approach. The Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk) and the Western District (Roanoke, Charlottesville) have seen individual judge orders addressing AI use in filings. The Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, has also weighed in on AI issues in appellate proceedings. Virginia state courts operate under HB1642's human oversight framework but without attorney disclosure requirements. This creates the familiar state-federal compliance split that requires attorneys to track which standards apply in which forum.

Practical Compliance for Virginia Attorneys

Virginia's statutory approach means compliance operates on two tracks. First, understand HB1642's implications for your interactions with the court system — if AI is involved in court processes that affect your cases, the statute's human oversight requirement protects your clients. Second, maintain the standard AI verification practices that professional conduct rules require everywhere: verify citations, check factual accuracy, protect client confidentiality when using AI tools. Third, monitor the Virginia Supreme Court and State Bar for potential rule changes — the statutory framework suggests Virginia is willing to regulate AI, and court-specific rules could follow. Fourth, check federal court standing orders in EDVA and WDVA before filing.

The Bottom Line: Virginia's HB1642 requires human oversight of AI in government operations including courts, but creates no statewide attorney disclosure mandate — compliance means understanding the statutory framework while following existing professional conduct rules.