New Jersey Supreme Court Calls for CLE on Artificial Intelligence
The New Jersey Supreme Court has issued specific guidelines regarding the educational courses that will qualify as technology-related subjects under the newly revised continuing legal education (CLE) requirements for attorneys licensed in New Jersey. This announcement, made in a notice to the bar published on December 30, 2025, emphasizes several critical topics, including the role of artificial intelligence during discovery and the importance of internal policies to protect client confidentiality when collaborating with external vendors.
Starting from January 1, 2027, all New Jersey attorneys will be mandated to obtain one CLE credit in a technology-related course every two years. The revised regulations governing the state’s Board on Continuing Legal Education will now define “technology-related subjects” to encompass developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies that impact legal practice.
Specific Topics for CLE Courses
The proposed regulations have identified several key subjects deemed appropriate for CLE coursework:
- Technologies for Gathering Evidence: Tools used to collect electronic or digital evidence and their authentication for trial use.
- AI in Legal Practices: The relevance of artificial intelligence in legal research, discovery procedures, brief-writing, and court material preparation.
- Cybersecurity Tools: Utilizing cybersecurity features for the transmission, reception, and storage of digital information.
- Security Technologies: Implementing computer network, hardware, software, and mobile device security technologies to prevent and mitigate cybersecurity threats and data breaches.
- Internal Policies: Developing and implementing relevant internal policies for attorneys and outside vendors in both public and private sectors.
Comments on these proposed regulations are due by January 30, 2026. The new CLE requirement, which was approved by the court in April 2025, will take effect on January 1, 2027.
State Demands for Technology Competence
New Jersey joins a select group of states that have aligned their continuing legal education requirements with the increasing recognition of technology’s vital role in the ethical delivery of legal services. Similar mandates for technology education have also been adopted in states such as California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In July 2024, the American Bar Association published Formal Opinion 512, addressing the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in legal practice. Recently, the ABA’s Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence provided a detailed overview of the legal profession’s engagement with AI-related policy, highlighting various state bar opinions regarding the ethical implications of AI technologies.
The Challenge of AI Hallucinations
Despite the educational efforts by bar associations, the effectiveness of these initiatives has shown variability, particularly concerning generative AI “hallucinations” that produce misleading statements of law and false citations. Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has notably criticized these inaccuracies. In a December 30 ruling in the case of Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., the court dealt with fabricated deposition citations generated by AI, which were presented in a declaration opposing a motion for summary judgment.
The court highlighted the attorney’s responsibility to verify the accuracy of such citations, emphasizing that the client had a significant role in creating these erroneous documents. The attorney’s failure to detect and correct these inaccuracies led to monetary sanctions of $4,000 payable to opposing counsel, along with a requirement to attend a CLE course focused on hallucinated citations generated by AI in the legal context.
Ethical Obligations in Mississippi
While Mississippi’s Rules of Professional Conduct do not explicitly mandate a technology competence requirement, the state’s CLE rules lack a technology education requirement as well. However, in Ethics Opinion No. 267, Mississippi Bar officials stated that attorneys have a duty to verify the accuracy and sufficiency of work performed by generative AI. This responsibility arises from Rule 1.1, which dictates that lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients.
Attorneys are urged to assess the trustworthiness of AI tools they employ, as the level of verification required can vary based on the specific circumstances surrounding each case.
