Claude resources · Tracker
State AI Ethics Tracker
What the bars and courts have said about lawyers using generative AI. Official opinions, policies, and guidance by jurisdiction, each linked to its source.
Checked September 17, 2026
This database lists official guidance on lawyers’ use of generative AI: formal ethics opinions, court policies, and bar task force reports. Every entry links to the source we confirmed it against. It is not a complete survey, and an entry being absent does not mean a jurisdiction has said nothing. Rules of professional conduct apply to AI use whether or not your bar has issued an opinion about it.
Pending in Virginia: proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902, on a lawyer’s duties when opposing counsel files material containing AI-fabricated authority, went out for public comment on May 27, 2026 and was not final when we last checked.
49 of 49 entries
JurisdictionGuidanceTypeDateWhat it covers
National (ABA)Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools ↗Ethics opinionJuly 29, 2024Applies the Model Rules on competence, confidentiality, client communication, candor, supervision and fees to lawyers' use of generative AI tools.
VirginiaLegal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ↗Ethics opinionNovember 24, 2025Explains how Rule 1.5 reasonableness applies when generative AI saves time, including value-based fees and how to explain fees to clients.
VirginiaGuidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence ↗Practical guidanceUndatedShort staff guidance on confidentiality, client disclosure, competence and supervision, and billing when Virginia lawyers use generative AI, plus links to guidance from other bars.
VirginiaSupreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use ↗Applies to judges and court staff, not practicing lawyersCourt policyEffective June 6, 2024; last amended May 7, 2025Sets the only authorized uses of generative AI by judicial system personnel, including verification duties, training, vetted tools and a ban on DeepSeek applications.
Virginia (City of Richmond)Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence ↗Court policyJanuary 13, 2026Allows AI use but requires attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify any AI use in filings and in proposed exhibits before trial.
AlabamaFormal Opinion 2026-01: Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules ↗Ethics opinion2026Explains how existing duties of competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fees and communication apply to generative and agentic AI tools.
AlaskaEthics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law ↗Ethics opinionApril 23, 2025Answers six questions on using generative AI, covering competence, review of output, client confidences, billing for AI costs, fees and supervision.
ArizonaGenerative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges ↗Practical guidanceNovember 14, 2024Best practices for lawyers and judges on competence, confidentiality, client communication, billing, court disclosure, bias and supervision when using generative AI.
ArizonaGuidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law in Arizona ↗Practical guidanceUndatedPractice guidance urging caution, independent judgment and verification when Arizona legal professionals use generative AI, with attention to confidentiality and candor.
ArkansasAdministrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (2025 Ark. 220) ↗Court policyDecember 11, 2025Warns everyone in the court system about entering confidential client or court data into generative AI tools that retain and train on submissions.
CaliforniaPractical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law ↗Practical guidanceNovember 16, 2023; revised version approved May 14, 2026Maps California professional responsibility duties onto generative AI use, and the 2026 revision adds guidance on agentic AI at the Supreme Court's request.
ColoradoRule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope and Rule 1.1 ↗Court policyJanuary 8, 2026Adds AI-specific language to the Scope and Rule 1.1 comments, confirming technology use does not reduce a lawyer's responsibilities or independent judgment.
ConnecticutJBAPPM Policy 1013: Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Framework ↗Applies to judges and court staff, not practicing lawyersCourt policyFebruary 1, 2024Internal framework governing how the Judicial Branch evaluates, procures and uses AI systems, not a rule for practicing lawyers.
DelawareInterim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel ↗Applies to judges and court staff, not practicing lawyersCourt policyOctober 22, 2024Lets judges and court staff use approved generative AI tools with training, while keeping them responsible for accuracy and barring delegation of decisions.
District of ColumbiaEthics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters ↗Ethics opinionApril 2024Guides lawyers on competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fees and file retention when using generative AI in client matters.
FloridaEthics Opinion 24-1 ↗Ethics opinionJanuary 19, 2024Permits generative AI use if lawyers protect confidentiality, provide competent and accurate work, bill properly and follow advertising rules.
FloridaAmendment to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (Case No. SC2026-0673) ↗Court policyMay 28, 2026 (effective June 15, 2026)Makes a signature on a filing a representation that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with sanctions for fabricated citations.
GeorgiaGenerative AI Toolkit ↗Practical guidanceLast updated July 9, 2026Reference tool with recommendations and resources to help Georgia lawyers use generative AI consistently with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.
HawaiiFinal Report to the Hawaii Supreme Court (SCMF-24-0000305) ↗Task force reportDecember 15, 2025Reports the committee's findings and recommendations on AI capabilities, risks and use in Hawaii court operations and legal practice.
IllinoisThe Illinois Attorney's Guide to Implementing AI ↗Practical guidanceOctober 24, 2025Practical framework with checklists, sample policies and consent forms for choosing and deploying AI tools while meeting confidentiality and supervision duties.
IllinoisIllinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence ↗Court policyAnnounced December 18, 2024; effective January 1, 2025Authorizes AI use by lawyers, judges and litigants who meet existing legal and ethical standards, requires review of output, and does not mandate disclosure.
KentuckyEthics Opinion KBA E-457: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law ↗Ethics opinionMarch 15, 2024Addresses the duty to keep up with AI, when client disclosure is required, fees, confidentiality and supervision of AI use.
LouisianaLetter to the Louisiana State Bar Association: The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence ↗Court policyJanuary 22, 2024Letter from the Court to the state bar president addressing the emergence of AI and lawyers' obligations under existing rules.
MichiganEthics Opinion JI-155 ↗Addressed to judgesEthics opinionOctober 27, 2023States that judicial officers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including artificial intelligence. It addresses judges, not lawyers.
MichiganArtificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions ↗Practical guidanceNovember 18, 2024 (fees section updated February 11, 2025)Question and answer guidance on how Michigan ethics rules apply to lawyers' use of AI, including fees and confidentiality.
MinnesotaImplications of Large Language Models on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Access to Justice ↗Task force report2024Examines how large language models interact with unauthorized practice rules and lawyer ethics, and recommends a regulatory sandbox and a standing AI committee.
MississippiEthics Opinion No. 267 ↗Ethics opinionNovember 14, 2024Permits generative AI use with safeguards for confidentiality, competence, verification of output, reasonable billing and informed client consent where appropriate.
MissouriInformal Opinion 2024-11 ↗Ethics opinionApril 25, 2024Outlines competence, confidentiality, court order compliance, verification, supervision and fee considerations for lawyers using generative AI.
New HampshireEthics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (Ethics Corner) ↗Practical guidanceMay 15, 2024Ethics Committee article on competence, vetting AI output, confidentiality and candor when New Hampshire lawyers use AI tools.
New JerseyNotice: Legal Practice: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers ↗Court policyJanuary 24, 2024 (published January 25, 2024)Preliminary guidelines explaining how existing Rules of Professional Conduct apply when New Jersey lawyers use AI.
New JerseyReport, Requests, Recommendations, and Findings ↗Task force reportMay 2024Task force findings and recommendations on AI in New Jersey legal practice, including ethics, education and selection of AI tools.
New MexicoFormal Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law ↗Ethics opinionSeptember 24, 2024Advisory opinion applying New Mexico rules on competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, candor and supervision to generative AI use.
New York22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology ↗Court policyEffective June 1, 2026Permits AI use in preparing court papers without mandatory disclosure, but requires careful review so filings contain no fabricated authorities.
New YorkReport and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence ↗Task force reportApril 6, 2024 (approved by House of Delegates)Reviews AI benefits and risks for the profession and proposes guidelines on confidentiality, client notice, education and professional judgment.
New York (New York City)Formal Opinion 2024-5: Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Law Firms Relating to the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law ↗Ethics opinionAugust 7, 2024General guardrails for New York lawyers using generative AI, covering confidentiality, conflicts, competence, advertising, supervision, candor and fees.
New York (New York City)Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients ↗Ethics opinionDecember 22, 2025Requires client consent before using AI to record or transcribe client calls, verification of AI summaries, and advice on confidentiality risks.
North Carolina2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice ↗Ethics opinionNovember 1, 2024Allows AI use if lawyers use it competently, keep client information secure and properly supervise the technology and its output.
OhioOhio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers ↗Practical guidanceApril 2026Nonbinding staff guide on how Ohio conduct rules apply to AI use by lawyers and judicial officers.
OklahomaRule 1.17: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2026 OK CR 7) ↗Court policyFebruary 18, 2026Requires that any part of a filing produced or modified by generative AI be verified as accurate by a responsible person, with sanctions for noncompliance.
OregonFormal Opinion No. 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools ↗Ethics opinionFebruary 2025Concludes Oregon lawyers may use AI and generative AI tools with qualifications relating to competence, confidentiality, supervision, fees and candor.
OregonFormal Opinion No. 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications ↗Ethics opinionFebruary 2026Allows lawyers to use chatbots for marketing and client intake, subject to rules on competence, prospective clients, supervision, advertising and solicitation.
PennsylvaniaJoint Formal Opinion 2024-200: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence ↗Ethics opinionMay 2024Explains AI benefits and pitfalls and gives ethical guidelines on competence, verification of citations, confidentiality and client communication.
PennsylvaniaInterim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel ↗Applies to judges and court staff, not practicing lawyersCourt policySeptember 9, 2025 (effective December 8, 2025)Lets court personnel use leadership-approved generative AI tools for tasks like summarizing and drafting while remaining responsible for accuracy and confidentiality.
Rhode IslandOrder: In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines ↗Court policyJune 17, 2026Adds technology competence to the Rule 1.1 comment and adopts advisory interim guidelines on ethical generative AI use by lawyers and judicial officers.
South CarolinaInterim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ↗Applies to judges and court staff, not practicing lawyersCourt policyMarch 25, 2025Governs generative AI use by judicial branch officers and employees, limiting use to approved tools and requiring human oversight of drafted documents.
TexasOpinion 705 ↗Ethics opinionFebruary 2025Addresses competence, confidentiality, verification of output and billing under the Texas disciplinary rules when lawyers use generative AI.
VermontFirst Annual Report ↗Task force reportMarch 1, 2025First annual report of the Supreme Court-created committee studying AI's effect on court proceedings, court operations and legal practice in Vermont.
WashingtonAdvisory Opinion 2025-05: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice ↗Ethics opinion2025Applies Washington rules on competence, diligence, communication, fees, confidentiality, candor and supervision to predictive, generative and agentic AI tools.
West VirginiaLegal Ethics Opinion 24-01: Artificial Intelligence ↗Ethics opinionJune 14, 2024Distinguishes generative from other AI and applies duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision, fees and candor to its use.
Courthouse Digital is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. Summaries are ours, written in plain language. Read the source before relying on any of it. If your bar has published something that is missing, tell us and we will add it.