Kaufman Ops

AI settings for a small law firm in Arkansas

Checked against the source documents on October 26, 2026

Arkansas Administrative Order 25 says some AI tools keep what you type to build their models, and that it's on the user to find out whether yours does. The settings that answer that are on the main checklist. This page says which ones Arkansas points at, and why.

What Arkansas has said

Supreme Court of Arkansas: Administrative Order No. 25 (adopted by per curiam 2025 Ark. 220), In re Adoption of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25. Artificial Intelligence, 2025-12-11.

  1. Confidentiality. AO 25 Sec. 1 (adopted text): everyone participating in the court system must be mindful that entering confidential or sealed client or case data into a GAI tool may violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Judicial Conduct, AO 19 and statutes (2025 Ark. 220, pp. 1-2).
  2. Competence. Preamble para. 22 (adopted 2025-12-11): rules do not bar non-human assistance including AI, but its use never excuses or mitigates a violation; lawyers told to read AO 25 before using AI (2025 Ark. 221, p. 1). Rule 1.1 cmt. [8] technology competence comment in force since 2014.
  3. Supervision. Rule 5.3 retitled Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance; new comment [5] says nonlawyer assistance includes technological tools such as generative AI platforms (2025 Ark. 221, p. 2; current RPC PDF Rule 5.3 cmt. [5]).
  4. Disclosure. No statewide filing disclosure or certification requirement in AO 25 or the RPC amendments.
  5. Verification. Not addressed directly; responsibility for violations stays with the lawyer (Preamble para. 22). The court reprimanded an attorney ad litem for Copilot-generated citations in Ark. DHS v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17 (2026-02-05), and its 2025 Ark.

The line about the tool itself. AO 25 Sec. 1(a)-(b) (adopted): certain GAI tools retain submitted data to keep building their LLMs; users must determine whether the system retains and uses confidential or sealed data; Sec. 2 bars AOC staff, clerks and internal CourtConnect users from exposing internal court data to a GAI using a public LLM, with Automation Committee approval for research projects (Sec. 2(b)-(c)). (AO 25 Sec. 1(a)-(b), 2025 Ark. 220 p. 1 (adopted text, same wording as proposed))

One line from it: "Certain GAI tools retain the data submitted into their system" (AO 25 Sec. 1(a), 2025 Ark. 220 p. 1 (adopted 2025-12-11)).

The settings that answer it

  1. Use the business plan, not a personal one. On Claude Pro, Claude Max and ChatGPT Plus, training on chats is each user's own setting. On Claude Team, ChatGPT Business and Microsoft 365 Copilot with a work sign-in, business data is not used for training by default. On the checklist
  2. Turn off the training and feedback exceptions an admin can still turn off (Claude feedback, ChatGPT personal accounts that are still in use). On the checklist
  3. Set retention on purpose instead of taking the default. On the checklist
  4. Turn on single sign-on so a lawyer who leaves loses access the same day. On the checklist
  5. Decide on connectors, apps and agents before staff add them. On the checklist
  6. Pick a rule on memory, and teach temporary or incognito chats for one-off matter questions. On the checklist
  7. Put the vendor's written terms on training, retention, subprocessors and breach notice in the file. On the checklist
  8. Write the one-page staff instruction and a note for each new hire. On the checklist
  9. Keep a verification step before anything is filed. That is a procedure, not a setting, and no vendor sells it. On the checklist
  10. Decide what the engagement letter says about AI use and billing. That is yours to write; I only flag that the opinion raises it. On the checklist

Rules around it

Technology competence: Yes. Ark. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 cmt. [8] (benefits and risks associated with relevant technology), read in the current RPC PDF at.

In motion: Nothing pending at the court: the June 2025 proposals (AO 25 and RPC Preamble para. 22 and Rule 5.3) were adopted effective immediately on 2025-12-11 by 2025 Ark. 220 and 2025 Ark. 221.; no bar ethics opinion in motion was found. 2025-12-11 source

What this page is not

This is a tech settings page, not legal advice. The state document above is the ethics half and it is yours to read and decide on. I am not a lawyer. I link the source so you can check me.

Send me one screenshot

Crop out client names, send me a screenshot of your Claude, ChatGPT or Microsoft 365 admin settings page, and I'll write back what I'd change. Free. I never need a login.

If you want this kept current for your firm, that is the monthly desk: I watch these settings as the vendors change them and as your state changes its guidance, answer staff questions in writing, usually within one business day, and write up setup notes for each new hire. $500 a month, cancel any month.

Email nick@kaufmanops.com

Who wrote this

Nick Kaufman

I'm Nick Kaufman. I've spent six years in customer-facing technical support for SaaS, payments and CRM software, including three years at Tier 2 on a CRM built for financial advisors, whose firms work under SEC and FINRA rules. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice. I set up software so it does what the people responsible for it decided it should do.

Other states: the full list.