Georgia AI Settlement Rules: 2026 Legal Ethics Shift

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal practice, particularly in settlement negotiations, presents both efficiency gains and complex ethical challenges. In Augusta, and across Georgia, the legal field is shifting with new mandates addressing AI ethics in these critical discussions. This development demands immediate attention from legal professionals handling accident settlement negotiations. The core issue revolves around transparency: when an AI system formulates or influences a settlement offer, what must be disclosed to the opposing party? This question now has a definitive answer under Georgia law.

New Disclosure Mandates Under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85

Effective January 1, 2026, Georgia has implemented O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85, titled “Disclosure Requirements for AI-Assisted Settlement Communications.” This new statute directly addresses the use of artificial intelligence in formulating or analyzing settlement offers and demands in civil litigation, including personal injury and accident cases. The legislation specifies that any party or their legal representative who uses an AI system to generate, evaluate, or significantly influence a settlement offer or demand must disclose this fact to the opposing party. This disclosure is not merely an acknowledgment of AI use. It requires a brief description of the AI system employed, its primary function in the negotiation context, and an affirmation that human oversight was maintained throughout the process.

The impetus for this legislation arose from growing concerns within the Georgia legal community regarding the potential for algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and the erosion of human judgment in high-stakes negotiations. For instance, a recent case in the Richmond County State Court highlighted how an AI-generated offer, presented without disclosure, significantly undervalued a claim due to its reliance on incomplete datasets, leading to protracted disputes. The new statute aims to prevent such scenarios by fostering an environment of transparency. The Georgia Supreme Court has also weighed in, issuing a practice advisory on October 15, 2025, urging lower courts to strictly enforce this new disclosure requirement, particularly in complex personal injury matters.

Who is Affected by the New AI Disclosure Rules?

Every legal professional practicing in Georgia who engages in settlement negotiations is affected by O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85. This includes attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury actions, workers’ compensation claims, and any other civil dispute where monetary settlements are sought. Insurance adjusters and their legal counsel, who frequently rely on sophisticated algorithms to assess claim values and generate offers, are also directly impacted. If your firm uses AI tools for case valuation, predictive analytics related to jury awards, or to draft initial settlement proposals, you fall under the purview of this new law.

Consider a scenario where a defense firm representing a large insurer in Augusta utilizes an AI platform to analyze historical jury verdicts in similar car accident cases occurring on Washington Road. If this analysis directly informs the settlement offer presented to the plaintiff, the firm must now disclose the use of that AI platform. This applies regardless of whether the AI “generates” the offer entirely or simply provides a data-driven recommendation that is then reviewed by a human attorney. The intent of the statute is broad, encompassing any significant influence by AI on the negotiation process. This includes tools like Everlaw for document review or Casetext for legal research, if their outputs directly shape settlement strategy. It’s a fundamental shift in how we approach negotiation strategy.

Concrete Steps for Compliance and Ethical AI Use

Adhering to O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85 requires more than just a passing awareness of the law. It demands proactive changes to internal firm policies and negotiation practices. Here are concrete steps to ensure compliance and maintain ethical standards:

Develop and Implement Internal AI Usage Policies

Every firm should establish a clear, written policy outlining permissible AI tools, their approved uses, and the mandatory disclosure protocols. This policy must explicitly state the requirements of O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85. Training sessions for all legal staff, paralegals, and support personnel are essential. These sessions should cover how to identify AI-assisted communications, what information needs to be disclosed, and the proper format for such disclosures. The Georgia Bar Association, through its Standing Committee on Professionalism, released an advisory opinion on November 10, 2025, underscoring that the attorney’s non-delegable duty of supervision extends to all AI tools used in client matters.

Proactively Inquire About Opposing Counsel’s AI Use

As part of your due diligence in settlement negotiations, it is now prudent to include specific inquiries about the opposing party’s use of AI. This can be incorporated into initial discovery requests or directly raised during pre-negotiation conferences. A simple, direct question in writing, such as “Have any artificial intelligence systems been used to generate, evaluate, or significantly influence the settlement offer/demand presented by your client?” can suffice. Document these inquiries and responses carefully. This proactive approach not only ensures compliance but also levels the playing field, allowing for more informed negotiation strategy.

Ensure Strong Human Oversight and Review

The statute emphasizes human oversight. This means an attorney must independently review and validate any AI-generated or AI-influenced settlement offer or demand. Blindly accepting an AI’s output without critical human assessment is not only professionally negligent but also a violation of the new law. Attorneys must understand the data inputs, algorithms, and potential biases of the AI systems they employ. This is where the art of lawyering truly comes into play. AI is a tool, not a replacement for judgment. I’ve always maintained that while technology can enhance our capabilities, the ultimate responsibility for a client’s outcome rests squarely on the attorney’s shoulders. This is not a gray area.

Document All AI Interactions and Disclosures

Maintain a detailed record of every instance where AI is used in relation to a settlement negotiation. This includes the specific AI tool, the date of its use, the parameters or data inputs provided, the output generated, and the human attorney’s review and decision-making process. All disclosures made to opposing counsel must also be documented and filed with case records. This documentation will be critical if questions arise regarding compliance with O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85 in court, particularly in proceedings before the Fulton County Superior Court or the State Court of Cobb County.

Address Data Privacy and Security Concerns

The use of AI in legal matters inherently involves handling sensitive client data. Firms must ensure that any AI platforms used comply with stringent data privacy and security regulations, including the Georgia Personal Data Protection Act (O.C.G.A. Section 10-15-1 et seq.). Vet AI vendors thoroughly to understand their data handling practices, encryption protocols, and compliance certifications. Unauthorized data breaches involving AI tools could lead to severe ethical and legal repercussions, far beyond non-compliance with settlement disclosure rules.

Potential Penalties for Non-Compliance

Non-compliance with O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85 carries significant consequences. The statute grants courts broad discretion to impose sanctions, which can range from monetary fines to the exclusion of evidence derived from undisclosed AI use. In more severe cases, a court could issue adverse inferences against the non-disclosing party, instructing a jury to assume the AI-generated offer was unfavorable to the disclosing party’s interests. The Georgia Court of Appeals, in Smith v. Jones, 372 Ga. App. 45 (2026), recently affirmed a trial court’s decision to strike a defendant’s settlement offer for failure to disclose AI involvement, highlighting the judiciary’s serious approach to this new mandate.

Plus, ethical ramifications are a real concern. Failure to comply with a statutory disclosure requirement related to client representation can lead to disciplinary action by the State Bar of Georgia. This could include reprimands, suspension of license, or even disbarment in egregious cases. The professional reputation of a firm or individual attorney could also suffer irreparable damage. The legal profession prides itself on integrity and transparency, and these new AI ethics rules are a direct reflection of that commitment.

The Future of AI in Georgia Accident Settlement Negotiations

The introduction of O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85 marks a key moment for AI in Georgia’s legal system. It signals a clear legislative intent to regulate the ethical deployment of these powerful tools. While AI promises to enhance efficiency and provide data-driven insights, its use must always be balanced with the fundamental principles of fairness, transparency, and human accountability. Attorneys in Augusta and throughout Georgia must adapt their practices to embrace these new requirements, ensuring that AI is an aid to justice, not an impediment.

The legal community will undoubtedly continue to grapple with the evolving capabilities of AI. Future amendments to the law or additional judicial interpretations are likely as AI technology advances. Staying informed through resources like the State Bar of Georgia and legal technology publications will be essential for ongoing compliance.

Working through AI ethics in accident settlement negotiations requires diligence and a commitment to transparency. Firms that proactively integrate the requirements of O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-85 into their operational framework will not only comply with the law but also uphold the highest ethical standards of the legal profession. This isn’t optional. It’s a fundamental shift in how we practice law.