Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Tennessee's Supreme Court has approved a Continuing Legal Education Commission regulation that lets AI help build CLE courses but requires attorney vetting of the output and a certification from the attorney responsible for the course
A short regulation with two sentences of duty. The permission is broad. The vetting and certification that come with it are what a course sponsor would need to build into its process.
Bottom line: Binding on its face: a per curiam order of the Tennessee Supreme Court approving amendments to the regulations of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education. The AI provision is narrow in scope. It governs how AI is used to develop and deliver CLE programming, not how Tennessee lawyers use AI in practice. The order text we read states no effective date.
Who this affects: The attorney responsible for a CLE course, CLE providers and sponsors accredited in Tennessee, and the subject-matter attorneys who review course materials.
Issue date: The Tennessee courts rules page lists the order as filed on 9 October 2026. The order text we read carries no date line. No effective date appears in the AI section.
What changed: New Section 5.F permits AI for research, brainstorming and preparing written materials, outlines, still graphics, still images and presentations for CLE courses. Section 5.F.1 requires full review and vetting of AI-generated or AI-referenced content. Section 5.F.2 requires the responsible attorney to certify the AI-assisted materials.
Analysis: The vetting duty reaches content that AI "generated or referenced", so a case or statute that a model merely cited falls inside it. The certification names five tests, not one. Our inference is that a sponsor needs a record of who reviewed what, because the section names the certifier but says nothing about form or deadline.
Primary sources: Order with Appendices A to D (PDF hosted by the Tennessee Bar Association) · Tennessee courts rules page for ADM2026-00693
- Instrument (EN)
- Order amending Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 21 and approving amendments to the regulations of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education to add an Artificial Intelligence policy (new Section 5.F)
- Authority
- Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville (per curiam)
- Jurisdiction
- Tennessee
- Status
- Order adopting the amendments (the Tennessee courts rules page still carries a status label reading "Proposed & out for public comment", but the order itself says the Court "amends Rule 21" and "has approved amendments to the regulations of the Commission" after a comment period opened by an order of 27 May 2026; see the last section). Appendix C shows the change in mark-up and Appendix D the regulations as amended
- Bindingness
- Court order approving Commission regulations. The text we read gives no penalty for noncompliance with Section 5.F
- Issue date / next deadline
- Filed 9 October 2026 per the Tennessee courts rules page. No effective date or compliance deadline stated for Section 5.F
- Case number
- ADM2026-00693
- Primary source
- https://www.tba.org/docDownload/3139474
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
What the order did
The order says the Court solicited public comment by order filed 27 May 2026 on amendments to Rule 21 that combine Sections 6 and 7 and revise deadlines and fees for attorneys who fall out of compliance with annual MCLE requirements. It received one comment, from the Knoxville Bar Association, and then amended Rule 21 as set out in Appendix A.
Separately, it says the Court has approved amendments to the regulations of the Commission to add an Artificial Intelligence policy, and it defines the abbreviation AI. That is Appendix C, with Appendix D showing the regulations after the change. The AI policy therefore sits in the Commission's regulations, not in the text of Rule 21 itself.
The permission and the vetting duty
Section 5.F.1 opens by allowing AI "as a tool for research, brainstorming, and preparation of written materials, outlines, still graphics, still images, and presentations for CLE courses." The list is specific. It does not mention audio or video, and we read nothing into that silence.
The condition follows. All substantive content, instructional materials and information "generated or referenced by AI must be fully reviewed and vetted by an attorney with expertise in the relevant subject matter or who independently researches the referenced information." The purpose stated is accuracy and compliance with applicable law and ethical standards.
Two points are worth holding apart. The reviewer can be a subject-matter attorney, or an attorney who independently researches what the AI referenced. And "referenced" widens the duty beyond text a model wrote to anything it pointed to.
The certification
Section 5.F.2 puts a second duty on a named person: "The attorney responsible for the CLE course must certify that all materials prepared with the assistance of AI have been independently evaluated for accuracy, compliance with applicable law, completeness, professionalism, and appropriateness for CLE credit."
That is five tests. The text we read does not say what form the certification takes, when it is due, or to whom it goes. Those may sit in other Commission forms or rules, which we did not review. What the section does fix is a single accountable attorney per course.
How it sits next to the rest of the order
Section 5 of the regulations is headed Continuing Legal Education Providers, and the new item is lettered F. The same Appendix C also carries a mark-up of the inactive-status provision in Section 2 and of the attendance reporting provisions that follow Section 5. We have not analyzed those changes here.
The order's own description of the Rule 21 comment round concerns the MCLE noncompliance deadlines and fees. The order does not say whether the AI regulation was in that comment round, and we did not check. We flag that as an open question and draw no conclusion from it.
What we did not verify
We opened the full order and Appendices A to D as hosted by the Tennessee Bar Association, and the Tennessee courts rules page that lists the order as filed on 9 October 2026. We later opened the PDF attached to the courts page. Its text recalls that an order of 27 May 2026 solicited public comment and then says the Court amends Rule 21 and has approved the Commission regulation changes. We did not diff it against the TBA copy. The page's "Proposed & out for public comment" label therefore looks like a status field that was not updated after the comment period. That is our reading, and the page does not say so.
We did not find an effective date for Section 5.F, a certification form, a deadline, or any sanction. We did not read the comment from the Knoxville Bar Association. We did not review other Commission regulations, forms or the full text of Rule 21.
We refuse to claim that the provision applies to non-attorney speakers, to recorded video content, or to CLE offered by out-of-state providers. The section does not say, and we have not inferred it.
If you sponsor or teach Tennessee CLE, assume every AI-assisted course needs two things on file: proof that an attorney reviewed what the AI wrote or cited, and a certification from the responsible attorney against five named tests. Ask the Commission for the form and timing, because the section text does not give them.
Source File
https://www.tba.org/docDownload/3139474
Open the order PDF and confirm four things: the case number ADM2026-00693 in the caption, the sentence approving amendments to add an AI policy, Section 5.F.1 in Appendix C or D on vetting, and Section 5.F.2 on the responsible attorney's certification. Then open the Tennessee courts rules page for the filing date and look for the tncourts.gov copy of the PDF.
The attorney responsible for the CLE course must certify that all materials prepared with the assistance of AI have been independently evaluated for accuracy, compliance with applicable law, completeness, professionalism, and appropriateness for CLE credit. ยท Section 5.F.2, Commission regulations, Order in ADM2026-00693
FAQ
Does Tennessee now ban AI in CLE course materials?
No. Section 5.F.1 says AI may be used as a tool for research, brainstorming and preparing written materials, outlines, still graphics, still images and presentations for CLE courses. The conditions are vetting and certification.
Who certifies the AI-assisted materials?
Section 5.F.2 names the attorney responsible for the CLE course. The text we read does not say whether that is the provider's representative, the lead speaker or someone else, so confirm with the Commission.
What does the certification cover?
Section 5.F.2 lists five tests for AI-assisted materials: accuracy, compliance with applicable law, completeness, professionalism, and appropriateness for CLE credit, each independently evaluated.
When does Section 5.F take effect?
The order text we read does not state an effective date for the AI provision. The Tennessee courts rules page lists the order as filed on 9 October 2026, which is a filing date and not necessarily an effective date.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.