The 2026 AI-Related Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct
May/June 2026
Download This Article (.pdf)
This article discusses recent amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct concerning the use of artificial intelligence.
On January 8, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court approved several amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) to address the use—and potential misuse—of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession. With these changes, Colorado became the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt AI‑specific amendments to its lawyer ethics rules.1 This article discusses the recent amendments and highlights the need for lawyers to consider their obligations under the Rules in the face of rapidly developing generative AI technologies.
The History of the Amendments
In 2023, the legal world—and the general public—took notice when courts first began calling out legal professionals and pro se parties whose filings contained AI-generated “hallucinations” (i.e., false information and fictitious case citations).2 In response, the Colorado Supreme Court directed the Standing Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct to consider amendments to the Rules to address the implications of lawyers’ use and misuse of AI tools. The Standing Committee formed an AI Subcommittee to study the issue and to draft proposed AI-related changes to the Rules.
The subcommittee approached its task with the following four principles in mind. First, the Rules apply regardless of the technologies used. Second, the rapid rise of AI has created a need to draw lawyers’ attention to that first principle. Third, the availability of AI technologies in the legal field has important access to justice implications. And finally, any recommendations should endeavor to avoid the need for serial amendments as technologies continue to develop.3 The subcommittee conducted a thorough review of AI’s implications for each of the Rules, educated itself as to available AI technologies, researched how other jurisdictions were addressing legal professionals’ use of AI, and submitted a series of recommendations to the Standing Committee over the course of several months. After each Standing Committee meeting, the subcommittee incorporated the Standing Committee’s feedback in new versions of the recommendations.
The Amendments
After lengthy discussions and debate, the Standing Committee recommended that the supreme court adopt three changes to the Rules: (1) a new Scope section [20A], (2) an amendment to Comment [8] to Rule 1.1, and (3) a new Comment [9] to Rule 1.1. Following a public notice and comment period and a public hearing, the supreme court approved the recommendations without changes.
New Scope Section [20A]
The Rules now contain a new Scope section [20A]. The new section highlights the growing use of technology in the legal field, explicitly including AI.4 It reminds lawyers of their continued responsibilities under the Rules, even as they incorporate AI into their practice and encounter it in their interactions with courts, clients, and other lawyers. New Scope section [20A] reads:
Technology, including artificial intelligence and similar innovations, plays an increasing role in the practice of law, but that role does not diminish a lawyer’s responsibilities under these Rules. A lawyer who uses, directly or indirectly, technology in performing or delivering legal services may be held accountable for a resulting violation of these Rules.
Revised Comment [8] to Rule 1.1
Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 has been amended to conform to Comment [8] to ABA Model Rule 1.1.5 While Comment [8] does not explicitly refer to AI, it directs lawyers, as part of maintaining their competence, to educate themselves as to relevant developing technologies, as well as the benefits and risks associated with those technologies.6 The revised comment reads as follows:
Maintaining Competence
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technologies, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
The changes from the prior version of Comment [8] are as follows:
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with and changes in communications and other relevant technologyies, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. See Comments 18 and 19 to Rule 1.6.7
New Comment [9] to Rule 1.1
Finally, a new Comment [9] has been added to Rule 1.1. New Comment [9] builds on new Scope [20A] by reminding lawyers that the use of technology, particularly AI, can implicate various Rules and does not diminish lawyers’ responsibilities under the Rules.8 The comment concludes with a non-exhaustive list of the Rules that AI potentially implicates.9 New Comment [9] says:
A lawyer’s use of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, can implicate a number of Rules, including, without limitation, those governing communication (Rule 1.4), reasonable fees (Rule 1.5), preservation of a client’s confidential information (Rule 1.6), meritorious claims and defenses (Rule 3.1), candor toward the tribunal (Rule 3.3), responsibilities of a partner or supervisory lawyer (Rule 5.1), responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer (Rule 5.2), responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance (Rule 5.3), communications concerning a lawyer’s services (Rule 7.1), and bias (Rule 8.4(g)). Reliance on technology does not diminish the lawyer’s duty to exercise independent judgment in the representation of a client.
The Benefits of the Amendments
The AI amendments are both modest and neutral. And while they note lawyers’ duty to keep abreast of changes in AI technology, including its benefits and risks, the amendments neither encourage nor discourage incorporating AI into lawyers’ practice. However, in light of AI’s unprecedented power and the pace of its development, the amendments perform an important function. Collectively, they acknowledge the use of AI in the legal field, remind lawyers that they need to carefully consider which Rules may be implicated through the use of AI, and direct lawyers to educate themselves about the benefits and risks of emerging technologies.
Over the past few years, AI technologies have already rapidly spread across the legal field. AI tools offer immense promise for all legal professionals. For example, legal professionals can save significant amounts of time and client resources by turning to AI to perform tasks that not long ago only a human could accomplish. In addition, AI creates new access to justice possibilities and can provide self-represented litigants, including individuals who cannot afford a legal professional or obtain pro bono assistance, with low-cost assistance as they navigate their way through the legal system. At the same time, a study found that, in 2023, even closed AI systems10 designed for legal professionals’ use produced output containing errors, including hallucinations.11 These tools can also reflect biases contained in their training datasets.12 Uninformed or careless use can, among other things, implicate attorney-client and work product confidentiality.13
As a new tool becomes more widely used and better understood, that tool’s potential for misuse also becomes clearer. Today, it is approaching common knowledge that a court filing drafted using AI may include imaginary citations. But a mere three years ago, AI-induced hallucinations surprised lawyers and courts.
The amendments draw attention to the important reality that lawyers are responsible for the outputs of any AI tool they use in their practice and that misuse of AI can violate lawyers’ obligations under the Rules, including those cross-referenced in new Comment [9]. There is no question that the legal profession is using AI tools and will continue to do so at an increasing rate. The AI amendments serve as one way to remind lawyers to be mindful of their professional conduct obligations as they incorporate responsible AI use into their practice.
Final Thoughts
The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are but one set of rules governing the legal profession that have been impacted by the rapid rise of AI, and various efforts are underway to provide legal stakeholders with further guidance on this rapidly growing technology. For example, in September 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court created a new Legal Technology Advisory Committee to develop a guidance document to aid attorneys, licensed legal paraprofessionals, other legal professionals, judicial officers, and members of the public on the appropriate use of AI and other advanced technologies. The chief justice charged this committee with submitting an initial proposed guidance document to the court by October 1, 2026.14 That committee’s efforts will be the subject of future Colorado Lawyer articles.
Explore This Issue
Ciara M. Anderson
Under Oath
Frances R. Johnson
Diversity on the Bench Spotlight
By Christine Lyman, with contributions from John Rodman
Related Topics
Notes
citation Martinez et al., “The 2026 AI-Related Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct,” 55 Colo. Law. 40 (May/June 2026), https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct.
1. While the amendments modify the Rules of Professional Conduct, not the Licensed Legal Paraprofessional (LLP) Rules of Professional Conduct, the former “presuppose a larger legal context shaping the LLP’s role” and “may alert LLPs to their responsibilities under such other law” or “may provide guidance to LLPs when the LLP rule is analogous to the rule applicable to lawyers.” Colo. LLP RPC, Scope §§ [15], [21].
2. See, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 459–66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067, 2023 WL 8111898, at *1 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Nov. 22, 2023); Ex parte Lee, 673 S.W.3d 755, 756–57 (Tex.App. 2023). The Mata case received widespread media attention, including a front-page article in The New York Times. See Weiser, “Here’s What Happens When Your Lawyer Uses ChatGPT,” N.Y. Times A1 (May 27, 2023).
3. See Attachment 2 to the agenda for the April 25, 2025, meeting of the Standing Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter Agenda), https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/Agenda%20and%20Meeting%20Materials%20for%204.25.2025%20meeting.pdf, at 14–15; cf. ABA Rules: ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 1.1, cmt. [8].
4. See Colo. RPC, Scope, [20A] (effective Jan. 8, 2026).
5. See Agenda, supra note 3 at 11, § II.
6. See Colo. RPC 1.1, cmt. [8] (effective Jan. 8, 2026).
7. See Rule Change 2026(02) at 3, Colo. RPC 1.1, cmt. [8] (effective Jan. 8, 2026), https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026%2802%29.pdf.
8. See Colo. RPC 1.1, cmt. [9] (effective Jan. 8, 2026).
9. See id.
10. A “closed” AI system is only accessible to a particular group, while an “open” system allows third parties to access data, code, or other information to facilitate AI development. See “The Open or Closed AI Dilemma,” Bipartisan Policy Center (May 2, 2024), https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/the-open-or-closed-ai-dilemma [https://perma.cc/E7RU-P5G9].
11. Magesh et al., “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools,” J. of Empirical Legal Stud. 9–18 (2025), https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Legal_RAG_Hallucinations.pdf.
12. Berkenkotter and Lipinsky de Orlov, “Artificial Intelligence and Professional Conduct,” 53 Colo. Law. 20 (Jan./Feb. 2024), https://cl.cobar.org/features/artificial-intelligence-and-professional-conduct. See also, e.g., Cyphert, “A Human Being Wrote This Law Review Article: GPT-3 and the Practice of Law,” 55 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 401 (2021).
13. See, e.g., United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503, 2026 WL 436479, ___ F.Supp.3d ___ (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) (concluding that a defendant’s communications with a publicly available generative AI tool in connection with a pending criminal investigation are not protected under the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine).
14. See “Chief Justice Márquez Launches Initiative to Form Legal Technology Advisory Committee” (Sept. 15, 2025), https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/press-release/chief-justice-marquez-launches-initiative-form-legal-technology-advisory?topic=76&wrapped=true.