Washington

Does Washington State require attorneys to disclose AI use in state court filings? Not yet — but Washington is moving on multiple fronts simultaneously. A task force is active, multiple AI bills are progressing through the legislature, and the Washington State Bar Association issued Advisory Opinion 2025-05 addressing AI ethics for attorneys. No court filing rule exists today, but the combination of legislative action, bar guidance, and task force activity makes Washington one of the most active states on AI governance.

For managing partners at Washington firms, Advisory Opinion 2025-05 is the immediate compliance touchpoint. It doesn't create a filing disclosure requirement, but it establishes the bar's expectations for how attorneys should use AI tools — and those expectations will inform whatever court rule follows.

Washington State Bar Advisory Opinion 2025-05

The Washington State Bar Association issued Advisory Opinion 2025-05, directly addressing attorney obligations when using generative AI tools. The opinion covers competence requirements (attorneys must understand how AI tools work before using them), confidentiality obligations (client data must not be exposed to AI platforms without appropriate safeguards), supervision duties (attorneys must review all AI-generated work product), and candor requirements (AI-hallucinated content cannot be submitted to courts). While advisory opinions aren't binding rules, they represent the bar's formal interpretation of existing Rules of Professional Conduct as applied to AI. Washington courts and disciplinary authorities will reference this opinion when evaluating attorney conduct.

Washington's AI Task Force and Legislative Activity

Washington has an active AI task force studying the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal system and court operations. Simultaneously, the Washington State Legislature has multiple AI-related bills in progress, addressing topics from AI transparency to algorithmic accountability to AI in government services. Some bills have provisions that could affect legal practice directly — particularly those addressing AI transparency in professional services. Washington's legislative approach is broader than court-specific rulemaking: the state is building an AI governance framework that could impose obligations on attorneys through statute rather than court rule. This legislative track runs parallel to any court rulemaking and could move faster.

Current Filing Requirements: What Exists Today

As of now, Washington has no statewide court rule requiring AI disclosure in filings. No standing order from the Washington Supreme Court addresses attorney AI use in filings. Individual Superior Court judges may have issued their own orders, but no uniform requirement exists across Washington's 39 counties. The Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) — interpreted through Advisory Opinion 2025-05 — create ethical obligations around AI use but don't mandate specific disclosure language in court filings. The gap between ethical obligation (use AI competently) and procedural requirement (tell the court you used AI) remains open.

Federal Courts in Washington vs. State Court Status

The Western District of Washington (Seattle, Tacoma) and Eastern District of Washington (Spokane, Yakima) have seen individual judges address AI through standing orders and case management directives. The Ninth Circuit, which covers Washington, has been active on AI policy issues. Federal courts in Washington are ahead of state courts on formal AI disclosure requirements — but the state's multi-front approach (task force + legislation + bar opinion) could produce a more comprehensive framework than individual judge orders. Washington state courts may leapfrog their federal counterparts by adopting a unified approach rather than a patchwork.

Compliance Strategy for Washington Firms

Advisory Opinion 2025-05 is your baseline — build to it. First, ensure every attorney in your firm has read the opinion and understands its implications for daily practice. Second, implement the competence requirement: attorneys must understand how AI tools work before using them on client matters. Third, lock down confidentiality protocols — no client data into AI platforms without documented safeguards and client awareness. Fourth, require human review and verification of all AI-generated content before filing. Fifth, monitor three channels simultaneously: the task force for court rule recommendations, the legislature for statutory obligations, and the bar for additional advisory opinions. Washington's multi-front approach means compliance requirements could come from any direction.

The Bottom Line: Washington has no state court AI disclosure filing rule, but Advisory Opinion 2025-05 sets bar expectations, a task force is active, and multiple AI bills are in the legislature. Washington is building a comprehensive AI framework — firms should comply with the bar opinion now and prepare for formal rules from multiple sources.