Delaware.
Attorney AI ethics guidance status for Delaware as of May 9, 2026. Court-focused policy for judicial officers + Court of Chancery practitioner certification requirement.
Delaware bar AI ethics status. #
Delaware's AI guidance is distinctive in two ways. First, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted an Interim Policy on October 21, 2024 governing AI use by judicial officers, employees, law clerks, interns, and volunteers — but explicitly does not address attorney AI use through the bar. Second, the Court of Chancery has issued the practitioner-facing guidance Delaware lacks at the bar level: in Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc. (Vice Chancellor Lori Will, April 2025), the court ordered the litigant to certify GenAI use in any future filings, identify the technology used, and confirm the veracity of all legal authority cited. Delaware's Office of Disciplinary Counsel has not issued a formal AI ethics opinion.
Authoritative source: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266868
Last verified: . If this row text disagrees with the linked source, the source controls.
What this means in practice. #
For practitioners admitted in Delaware, the formal guidance above is the binding professional-conduct anchor for AI use. The recurring duties: (1) maintain competence in the AI tool, (2) protect client confidentiality (do not submit confidential material to public-version AI tools), (3) supervise AI output, and (4) verify all factual and legal content before submission.
Cross-jurisdictional consideration: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is broadly consistent with the Delaware guidance and serves as a federal anchor for multi-state practitioners. Where Delaware guidance is more specific or more restrictive than ABA Op. 512, the Delaware guidance controls within Delaware.
Comparison to ABA Op. 512. #
Delaware's AI guidance does not come from the bar; it comes from the courts. Compare directly to ABA Op. 512 is therefore not apples-to-apples — Delaware's rules govern only court personnel and only operationally.
- The Delaware Supreme Court Interim Policy (Oct 21, 2024) applies to "all judicial branch judicial officers, employees, law clerks, interns, externs, and volunteers." It does NOT address attorney AI use through the disciplinary regime. For attorneys, ABA Op. 512 governs persuasively, applied through the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct.
- The Court of Chancery decision in Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc. (Vice Chancellor Lori Will, April 2025) is the practitioner-facing layer. The court ordered the litigant to certify GenAI use, identify the technology, and confirm veracity of cited authority. This is functionally an in-matter standing order, not a court-wide rule.
- Chancery practice-pointer regime. The Court of Chancery typically issues practice pointers rather than formal rules. Practitioners should monitor Chancery decisions for evolving AI guidance, since that is where it lives in Delaware.
See section 06 below for the special considerations that apply to Delaware corporate-litigation practice.
Federal court AI standing orders affecting Delaware practitioners. #
Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc.: ordered the pro se litigant to certify GenAI use in any future filing, identify the GenAI technology used, and confirm veracity of all legal authority cited. Functions as in-matter standing order; the Chancery practice-pointer regime substitutes for court-wide rules.
Last verified: . The comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders is maintained by Bloomberg Law and Law360.
AI case-law context for Delaware. #
Delaware sits within the 3rd Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit). Decisions of the 3rd Circuit are binding on the federal courts within Delaware; state-court decisions of the Delaware appellate system bind Delaware's state courts; Supreme Court decisions are binding on everyone. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision directly addressing attorney AI use, so the controlling case law is at the circuit and district levels:
E.D. Pa. — issued one of the broadest federal AI standing orders (June 2023). Requires disclosure of any AI use (not limited to generative) and certification that all citations are verified as accurate.
Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) and Park v. Kim (2d Cir. 2024) are routinely cited as persuasive authority in 3rd Circuit federal courts.
Practitioners in Delaware should treat the cases above as the operating framework for AI-related conduct until Delaware-specific binding precedent or Delaware bar guidance controls a particular question. The verification duty under Mata and Park v. Kim has been routinely cited in sanctions matters across all federal circuits including the 3rd Circuit.
Delaware legal landscape. #
Delaware's legal market is small in attorney count but disproportionately influential in corporate law: the Delaware Court of Chancery hears most US corporate disputes given that more than 60% of S&P 500 corporations are incorporated in Delaware. The single federal district (D. Del.) handles a disproportionate share of patent litigation.
Most US states have adopted the substance of ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 — that the duty of competence requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Whether Delaware has adopted Comment 8 verbatim, in modified form, or relies on the underlying Rule 1.1 text alone, the substantive duty of technological competence applies to AI-related practice in Delaware.
Delaware-specific FAQ.
Has the Delaware bar issued formal AI ethics guidance?
Yes. Delaware has issued: Delaware Supreme Court Interim Policy (Oct 21, 2024) + Court of Chancery decision (Apr 2025) (2024 / 2025). The opinion applies the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney AI use. The primary source link in §01 above is authoritative; the comparison to ABA Op. 512 in §03 highlights where Delaware aligns with or diverges from the ABA framework.
Which federal district covers Delaware?
Delaware has one federal district: District of Delaware (D. Del.). AI-specific standing orders are typically issued at the individual-judge level rather than court-wide. Practitioners should consult each assigned judge's standing orders before filing.
Does Delaware have a mandatory unified bar?
Yes. The Delaware bar is a mandatory unified bar — all licensed attorneys must be members. AI ethics guidance issued by the bar applies to all admitted practitioners. Discipline for AI-related misconduct flows through the bar's formal disciplinary regime under the Supreme Court of Delaware's plenary supervisory authority.
What about small-firm and solo practitioners in Delaware?
Delaware has approximately 4,500 active attorneys, making it one of the smaller US legal markets. Small-firm practitioners predominate. AI tooling decisions have outsized stakes for solo and small firms because the same tool will touch many matters; vendor diligence is therefore especially important. Closed-loop enterprise tiers from major foundation-model vendors are commercially accessible to firms of any size.
Does AI vendor diligence apply in Delaware?
Yes. The supervisory duty under Delaware's analog to Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) applies to AI vendor relationships. North Carolina's 2024 FEO 1 frames AI vendors explicitly under Rule 5.3, and that framing has been treated as persuasive in other jurisdictions including Delaware. Vendor diligence — privacy-policy review, data-retention terms, training-on-customer-data clauses — is a precondition to selecting an AI tool for client work.
Why Delaware is different. #
Delaware's AI regulatory posture reflects three characteristics that distinguish Delaware from every other state and that practitioners need to understand:
- The Court of Chancery dominates. Delaware is the corporate-litigation jurisdiction of the United States (more than 60% of S&P 500 corporations are incorporated in Delaware). The Court of Chancery hears most of the substantive corporate disputes, and the Chancery practice-pointer regime — informal guidance that operates with the force of court rules in practice — is where AI guidance for Delaware litigators actually lives. The State Bar's absence of a formal AI ethics opinion is less consequential in Delaware than it would be elsewhere because the Chancery sets the actual operating rules.
- Trade-secret confidentiality stakes are the highest in the US. Delaware's commercial-litigation docket includes M&A disputes, derivative actions, books-and-records demands, and corporate-control fights. The discovery records often contain unreleased product roadmaps, M&A negotiation positions, executive compensation deliberations, and other material the parties never want exposed. Uploading any of this into a public AI tool is not just a privilege concern (post-Heppner) — it can be a billion-dollar trade-secret incident. Delaware practitioners should treat closed-loop AI tooling as mandatory, not best-practice.
- Pro hac vice attorneys are bound by Delaware rules during the matter. Many appearances in Delaware courts are by out-of-state counsel admitted pro hac vice. Those attorneys are bound by the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and the Court of Chancery's practice expectations during the matter. Out-of-state practitioners cannot rely on their home-state AI guidance alone.