The Complete Guide to Using AI as a Legal Professional in Sioux Falls in 2025

Sioux Falls lawyers can't afford to ignore AI in 2025: professional-grade tools are already driving productivity in legal research, document review, contract analysis and drafting - Thomson Reuters 2025 report on AI in the legal profession finds AI can save lawyers nearly 240 hours per year and is widely used to summarize and draft work product.

That promise comes with caveats for South Dakota practice: rigorous verification after AI drafts, strict client-confidentiality checks, and clear oversight are essential (high‑profile fabricated citations have led to sanctions).

Think of AI as an efficiency partner that buys time for strategy and client counseling - if implemented with due diligence, vendor controls, and training. For practical upskilling, Nucamp's Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp - 15-week workplace AI skills and prompt-writing course teaches prompt-writing and workplace AI skills to help firms adopt tools responsibly.

“The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor,' not as a producer of documents . . . breadth of experience is where a lawyer's true value lies and that will remain valuable.”

Sioux Falls firms can turn AI from a buzzword into billable-hour gains by mapping real workflows: start with intake automation and secure client portals to cut data entry, layer document automation for repeatable pleadings and contracts, and use a legal‑grade DMS with AI that “brings AI to your content” so sensitive files never leave your system; local vendors advertise pre-built Sioux Falls templates and integrations with QuickBooks, Sanford Health, and regional banks to speed rollout (Autonoly Sioux Falls workflow automation guide).

Use no-code builders and Q&A tools to turn playbooks into apps for triage and red‑flag review (see Josef and BRYTER for no‑code legal workflows), then connect an AI assistant or knowledge vault for fast, grounded research and secure project workspaces (NetDocuments ndMAX legal AI platform and app builders provides AI app builders and assistant features).

Practical sequence: automate intake → generate documents (templates + conditional logic) → run AI‑assisted review against your playbook → route approvals and close the loop with matter-level security; local case studies promise reallocated time (18–22 hours/week per employee) and rapid ROI. For a vivid test, firms can pilot document automation on a single practice area - Gavel's estate‑planning workflow shows how one template can produce an entire estate plan in a fraction of the time.

“We were able to do an entire estate plan in 30 minutes. I was running around the office telling everyone about how magical Gavel is.”

In 2025 the regulatory landscape for AI in U.S. law practice is shaped largely by the ABA's Formal Opinion 512, and Sioux Falls lawyers need to treat it like practice‑rule terrain: competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision and reasonable fees all still apply, and the opinion reframes familiar duties for a GenAI world.

Practically that means reading a tool's terms, getting informed client consent before feeding client data into “self‑learning” systems, documenting AI use in engagement letters, training staff, and keeping a sharp audit trail - for example, the ABA guidance notes that if a GenAI‑assisted drafting task truly takes 15 minutes the lawyer may only bill those 15 minutes plus review time, a concrete reminder that billable‑hour norms don't dissolve with automation (see the Thomson Reuters analysis of Formal Opinion 512).

State and local bars are already issuing companion guidance (the Florida Bar summarized key obligations), so Sioux Falls firms should adopt clear policies, vendor checks, and CLE to avoid confidentiality slipups or fee disputes and to preserve client trust in an AI‑augmented practice; treating AI as a supervised tool, not an autopilot, is the safest course.

“In sum, a lawyer may ethically utilize generative AI but only to the extent that the lawyer can reasonably guarantee compliance with the lawyer's ethical obligations.”

Sioux Falls lawyers should watch South Dakota's fast-moving state-level activity: while there's still no binding state bar opinion, Attorney General Marty Jackley joined 39 other attorneys general to oppose a federal budget amendment that would have frozen state AI rules - an action Jackley framed as protecting South Dakota's ability to impose reasonable AI safeguards (Dakota News Now: Attorneys General oppose proposed federal AI gag rule); the U.S. Senate later removed the moratorium provision by a 99–1 vote, preserving states' power to regulate and reinforcing why local counsel must track statutory carve-outs like South Dakota's bans on AI‑generated child pornography and election‑influence material (SDPB: Senate removes state AI moratorium, preserving state regulation authority).

At the same time, the profession in South Dakota voted to pursue mandatory continuing legal education - approximately 20 hours every two years beginning in 2027 pending court approval - so Sioux Falls practitioners should plan for AI‑focused CLE, monitor vendor and statute updates, and document any AI use in engagement letters or firm policies to avoid surprises in a landscape where state rules can change quickly (KELO / South Dakota News Watch: South Dakota attorneys vote in favor of mandatory CLE); remembering the 99–1 Senate tally helps make the point: regulation will be local, not erased by federal moratoria, and staying current here isn't optional, it's practical risk management.

“As Attorney General, I fully support the State's ability to impose reasonable regulations on AI within South Dakota.”

Ethics and risk in a Sioux Falls practice come down to three non‑negotiables: competence with tools, rock‑solid confidentiality, and rigorous verification of AI outputs - each rooted in South Dakota's Rules of Professional Conduct and ready access to local ethics guidance.

Rule 1.1 demands competent representation (now interpreted to include technology skills), Rule 1.6 requires safeguarding client information and taking reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure, and Rule 1.4 emphasizes clear, preferably written, client communication and informed consent; these provisions mean firms should document any AI use in engagement letters, vet vendors, train staff, and log human review steps so a single mistaken upload doesn't cascade into a client‑confidentiality crisis.

The State Bar's Ethics Opinions page is a practical first stop when questions arise, while summaries of the tech‑competence duty explain why keeping up with AI tools is part of ethical practice; together they form the backbone of a defensible AI policy for South Dakota lawyers (South Dakota State Bar Ethics Opinions on AI and Ethics, South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct §16‑18‑A (Technology Competence), and guidance on technology competence under ABA Rule 1.1 via ABA technology competence resources for Rule 1.1 compliance).

Treat AI as an assisted‑drafting tool that requires documented oversight, and the profession's existing duties - competence, confidentiality, communication and supervision - provide the map for safe adoption.

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

Will AI replace lawyers in Sioux Falls? The short, practical answer is no - but the work lawyers do will change sharply: generative tools are already shaving hours from research, drafting and review, law schools are teaching AI and even the South Dakota Supreme Court's Chief Justice and the USD law dean say efficiency gains are real so long as human judgment stays central (South Dakota Searchlight on local judicial and academic views).

That shift means routine “grinder” tasks get automated while strategy, client counseling, courtroom advocacy and ethical gatekeeping remain human work - exactly the partition Thomson Reuters documents when it estimates AI can free lawyers hundreds of hours a year but still requires rigorous verification and trustworthy sources (Thomson Reuters 2025 analysis).

Cautionary courtroom episodes - a $5,000 sanction for AI‑invented citations and dozens of other hallucination incidents reported nationally - are vivid reminders that oversight isn't optional (Fortune on AI errors in briefs).

For Sioux Falls firms the sensible play is to train teams, preserve apprenticeship and reassign entry‑level talent toward supervision and AI‑driven strategy so the office that asks “Did you write this brief, or did AI write it?” can answer with documented human review and stronger client value.

“The short answer is that AI will not replace lawyers wholesale - but it will displace many of the tasks they currently perform.”

Sioux Falls attorneys choosing the “best” AI in 2025 should match tools to tasks, prioritize security and integrations, and start small with a pilot that proves human‑in‑the‑loop review: for practice‑management plus embedded AI, Clio Duo is a sensible starting point because it runs inside Clio Manage and is designed to keep firm data tied to your matters (Clio AI tools for lawyers guide); for heavy legal research and drafting, CoCounsel and Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel‑style assistants offer law‑focused LLM capabilities and vendor assurances about data use, while Harvey earned standout marks in benchmark testing - scoring as high as 94.8% on Document Q&A in the VLAIR study - so consider it for document Q&A and summarization tasks (VLAIR benchmark analysis of legal AI).

For contract work, specialist platforms like Diligen, Spellbook or the contract‑focused suites in the LegalFly roundup give better playbook redlining, clause extraction and Word‑native redlines; for investigations or plaintiff‑lead generation, Darrow's intelligence stack is worth evaluating.

Choose vendors that document no‑training clauses for your data, integrate with your DMS/Clio, and offer explainable redlines; a practical pilot might automate one high‑volume workflow (e.g., NDAs or retention letters) so partners can see time saved without sacrificing oversight - a single saved workflow that cuts routine drafting from hours to minutes is a vivid test that makes adoption real for the whole firm.

“Being able to know the tasks where tools such as Vecflow and others excel is the best way to measure long term ROI of legal AI.”

Choosing an AI or cloud vendor for a Sioux Falls law firm means treating procurement like risk management: insist on verifiable third‑party attestations (a vendor‑held SOC 2 Type 2 is a strong signal), require a written BAA and HIPAA‑aligned controls when any PHI could be involved, and read the vendor's SOC report rather than relying on marketing claims - SOC2 reports give deep detail while SOC3 is a public summary useful for initial screening (U.S. Legal Support security and compliance overview).

Ask for intrusion‑detection logs, third‑party penetration‑testing results, an independently vetted incident‑response plan, and proof of regular backups and geographically redundant datacenters (U.S. Legal Support documents 24/7 NOC and redundant datacenter practices as part of full‑spectrum protection).

Understand the difference between SOC 2 and HIPAA compliance so you can demand the correct assurances for healthcare work (Comparison of SOC 2 and HIPAA compliance), and use vendor SOC reports as a due‑diligence tool - Esquire's guide explains how SOC reports expose controls, roles, and processing integrity so firms can compare claims to reality (Esquire guide to SOC reports for vendor vetting).

A practical rule: require written answers to a small, repeatable cybersecurity questionnaire, a BAA where applicable, and evidence of independent auditor attestation before any client data ever leaves firm systems - that combination turns vendor promises into verifiable protections and keeps client confidentiality defensible in South Dakota practice.

Training and CLE are the linchpin of any defensible AI program for Sioux Falls firms: partner with local education resources (the University of South Dakota is already teaching AI and even offers the law librarian as a trainer) to run firm workshops, require baseline certification for attorneys and staff, and bake AI topics into regular CLE so competence is demonstrable and current (USD law school and chief justice on AI in the justice system (South Dakota Searchlight)).

Turn policy drafting into checklists by adapting ready templates and essentials - define approved tools, mandate human review of all AI outputs, set client‑disclosure rules, and require vendor controls (SOC 2/BAA where PHI is possible) - using practical templates and implementation guidance from industry resources (Darrow AI law firm policy template, Clio law firm AI policy guide).

Make training measurable: schedule recurrent drills, log human verification steps, assign a compliance owner to review incidents and update the policy quarterly, and pilot one high‑volume workflow to prove the review process before scaling - small, documented wins keep ethics front and center while letting efficiency grow without sacrificing client confidentiality or competence.

“The running joke is now, ‘Did you write this brief, or did AI write it?'”

Practical next steps for Sioux Falls lawyers: treat AI adoption as governance first and toolset second - within 30 days convene a small AI governance group, within 60 days adopt a written AI use policy that maps “red/yellow/green” uses and client‑consent rules, and within 90 days run a supervised pilot on one high‑volume workflow so partners can see documented time savings without sacrificing oversight (Casemark's five‑pillar playbook lays out these timelines and governance tools); keep every AI output human‑verified, update engagement letters to note material AI use, and require vendor assurances (SOC 2 / BAAs where PHI is possible) before any client data leaves firm systems.

Track state guidance closely - use the Justia 50‑state ethics survey to align practice with ABA duties on competence, confidentiality, supervision and fee disclosure - and lean on local resources: USD is teaching AI and offers the law librarian as a trainer, and focused upskilling like Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work (15 weeks) delivers prompt‑writing and workplace AI skills to make verification and policy implementation practical (see the Nucamp syllabus).

Start small, document every verification step, assign a compliance owner, and remember the human judgment test: AI can draft a first pass, but the human element finishes the job and protects clients and the court.

“The human element is working out that other 50%.”