In "Fiduciary Duties and Artificial Intelligence: Board Oversight and Governance in the Age of AI," published in the August 2026 issue of Nevada Lawyer, my colleague Michael Crisostomo delivers a timely framework for understanding how traditional fiduciary obligations apply to corporate AI adoption. The article's central thesis is straightforward but important: AI governance is not a technology problem delegable to IT—it is a core fiduciary responsibility.

Michael grounds his analysis in the duty of care, emphasizing that the standard is process-oriented. Directors need not guarantee that AI systems perform flawlessly, but they must demonstrate that adoption and oversight decisions were made through a reasonable, informed process—one supported by adequate reporting, independent expertise, and documented deliberation. The article draws a direct line from oversight doctrine to Nevada boardrooms, warning that systematic failures to monitor AI-related risks could expose directors to liability.

Particularly useful for practitioners is the article's discussion of non-delegability. While management executes AI strategy, the board retains ultimate oversight responsibility, including establishing governance structures that ensure reliable reporting on AI use cases, risks, incidents, and controls. Michael also addresses the duty of loyalty in the AI context, flagging conflicts that arise from director relationships with AI vendors.

For corporate attorneys advising boards, the practical takeaway is clear: the same procedural rigor that governs oversight of financial controls and regulatory compliance now applies with equal force to AI. Boards that treat AI governance proactively—rather than reactively following enforcement actions—will both mitigate liability and position their organizations for long-term competitive advantage. This article is well worth the read for any governance practitioner counseling directors through the AI transition.