LexLint.ioBeta

Know the law your code answers to.

Law / United States / Louisiana

Act 250 (HB 178), attorney duty to verify and disclose AI-generated evidence

La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 371

In force since .

An AI transparency rule binding public and private bodies.

Criminal exposure
No
Obligation class
Disclosure
Audit expectation
none

What it requires

  • As an attorney appearing in a Louisiana court, exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence, including evidence that may be artificially generated or altered, before offering it to the court.no control in the NIST AI RMF
  • If you knew or should have known through reasonable diligence that evidence is false or artificially manipulated, disclose that fact before offering it; offering it without disclosure is a violation of Article 371.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
NIST AI 600-1
MIT mitigations Draft
  • 4.1System Documentation
  • 4.2Risk Disclosure
  • 4.6User Rights & Recourse
FINOS AIGF
ETSI EN 304 223
  • 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
  • 5.3.1-1Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with developers informing operators.
  • 5.3.1-2.1That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.

What it makes you log

Logging duty

Article 371 requires an attorney to disclose to the court when evidence was, or should have been, known to be false or artificially generated, but it does not require the attorney, a party, or any technology provider to keep a log, record, or file documenting how the evidence was verified. The duty is a disclosure to the court in the moment, not a record-keeping duty.

Kind
None
As of

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

As part of a broad, Louisiana State Law Institute-recommended revision of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 371 was amended to add that an attorney shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence, including evidence that is artificially generated or altered by any means, and shall exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it to a court.

Offering evidence that the attorney knew or should have known through reasonable diligence was false or artificially manipulated, without disclosing that fact, is a violation of the Article, subjecting the attorney to punishment for contempt of court and other professional discipline. Signed by Governor Landry on as Act 250 (House Bill 178) and in effect since .

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app generates content with AI.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .