The Arkansas Supreme Court adopted amendments to the state's Rules of Professional Conduct on Dec. 11, 2025, that explicitly address the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, making Arkansas among the latest states to regulate attorney AI usage.
The court issued a per curiam opinion adopting the amendments, which were first proposed on June 5, 2025, following a public comment period. The new rules take effect immediately and add specific language to the Preamble of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct while modifying Rule 5.3.
The most significant change appears in a new paragraph added to the Preamble, which states: "Unless otherwise specified, nothing in these rules prohibits an attorney's use of non-human assistance, including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence (AI). However, the use of non-human assistance does not excuse or mitigate any violation of the rules that occurs from using such assistance."
The amendment explicitly permits Arkansas attorneys to use AI tools in their legal practice while establishing clear accountability standards. The language makes clear that while AI assistance is allowed, attorneys cannot use such technology as a shield against ethical violations that may result from its use.
The court also modified Rule 5.3, changing its heading from "Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants" to "Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance." This broader language reflects the expanded scope of non-human assistance that attorneys may now utilize in their practice.
Under the amended Rule 5.3, law firm partners and lawyers with managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure their firms have measures in place to guarantee that nonlawyer assistance conduct remains compatible with professional obligations. Similarly, lawyers with direct supervisory authority over nonlawyer assistance must take reasonable steps to ensure compatible conduct.
The rule holds lawyers responsible for conduct by nonlawyer assistance that would constitute a violation if performed by an attorney. This accountability structure extends to AI tools and other forms of non-human assistance, ensuring that the introduction of new technology does not create loopholes in professional responsibility standards.
The Preamble amendment also references Administrative Order No. 25, advising attorneys to review that order before using AI in their practice. While the specific contents of that administrative order were not detailed in the court's opinion, it appears to provide additional guidance for attorneys implementing AI tools.
The Arkansas amendments reflect a growing trend among state bar authorities and courts to address the rapid integration of AI technology in legal practice. As artificial intelligence tools become increasingly sophisticated and accessible, legal professionals across the country are grappling with questions about proper usage, ethical boundaries, and professional responsibility.
The Arkansas approach takes a permissive stance, explicitly allowing AI use rather than prohibiting or heavily restricting it. This framework acknowledges the potential benefits of AI assistance while maintaining traditional accountability standards for attorney conduct.
The timing of Arkansas's action reflects the accelerating pace of AI adoption in legal services. Law firms nationwide are increasingly using AI for document review, legal research, contract analysis, and other tasks traditionally performed by human attorneys and staff.
By explicitly addressing AI in its professional conduct rules, Arkansas provides clarity for attorneys who might otherwise be uncertain about whether existing ethical guidelines permit or restrict AI usage. The amendments eliminate ambiguity while establishing clear boundaries for responsible implementation.
The court's decision to make the amendments effective immediately suggests recognition of the urgent need for guidance as AI tools proliferate in legal practice. Rather than implementing a delayed effective date, the court chose to provide immediate clarity for Arkansas attorneys.
The amendment process, which included a public comment period following the June proposal, allowed for input from practicing attorneys, bar organizations, and other stakeholders. This collaborative approach helped ensure the final rules reflect practical considerations from the legal community.
For Arkansas attorneys, the new rules provide both permission and warning regarding AI usage. While the technology is explicitly allowed, attorneys must remain vigilant about potential ethical pitfalls and cannot claim ignorance of violations that result from AI assistance.
The amendments position Arkansas as a state taking proactive steps to address technological change in legal practice while maintaining core ethical standards. As other states consider similar measures, Arkansas's approach may serve as a model for balancing innovation with professional responsibility.