New Jersey AI Ethics Opinion 2025: Implementation Patterns

The Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on Attorney Ethics issued AI guidance in 2025. This article catalogs implementation patterns.

The opinion

NJ 2025 opinion:

Lawyers may use AI but must:

1. Understand limitations
2. Supervise AI work (analogous to non-lawyer assistant)
3. Verify citations and factual claims
4. Protect confidentiality
5. Communicate AI use to clients where appropriate

Source: https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/assets/courts/supreme/aos/advance-sheet-opinions/2025/njs17823.pdf

Implementation patterns

Understanding limitations

Working patterns:

1. AI capability training (annual)
2. AI failure mode documentation
3. Eval framework with statistical targets

Supervision

Working patterns:

1. Lawyer review mandatory for filed documents
2. AI output is research input, not decisional input
3. Audit logs of AI use per matter

Verification

Working patterns:

1. Citation verification per authoritative databases
2. Cross-check with secondary sources
3. Sample lawyer audit of AI-assisted filings

Confidentiality

Working patterns:

1. BAA-protected LLM endpoints
2. Self-hosted for sensitive
3. Engagement letter disclosure

Communication

Working patterns:

1. Disclosure in engagement letter
2. Disclosure when material to case strategy
3. Disclosure in litigation where required

Practical compliance

For NJ lawyers:

1. Document AI use in every matter
2. Implement audit logging
3. Verify all citations
4. Update engagement letters

Cross-jurisdictional considerations

NJ lawyers may also practice in:

• New York
• Pennsylvania
• Federal courts

For cross-jurisdictional practice:

• Per matter, identify most-restrictive state's rules
• Apply those rules
• Audit log per client matter

Acknowledgments

This article summarizes public sources as of early 2026.

Dillon Deutsch has worked with NJ firms on AI compliance. https://courtgpt.ai