All Articles
The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 clarifies that the duty of competence under Rule 1.1 now affirmatively requires attorneys to understand AI tools they use. North Carolina attorneys should audit their practices now.
When an attorney enters client facts into a commercial AI tool, who owns that data? North Carolina Rule 1.6 imposes strict limits that most standard AI terms of service do not satisfy.
From AI-drafted affidavits to algorithmically flagged documents in e-discovery, North Carolina courts are grappling with new authentication questions that existing evidentiary rules were not designed to answer.
Judges in the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of North Carolina have begun issuing standing orders on AI use in filings. Requirements vary significantly by judge and case type.
After six months of parallel testing across North Carolina case law queries, this assessment compares accuracy, citation reliability, and workflow integration across the three dominant AI legal research platforms.
An AI governance policy is no longer optional for North Carolina firms of any size. This framework addresses approved tools, data handling, supervision obligations, billing ethics, and client disclosure.