Loading insights
Loading insight article
Insights / Governance
Fifteen jurisdictions have issued formal AI ethics opinions for lawyers. Thirteen have said nothing at all. Here's where every state stands in 2026, what each requires and why knowing which authority controls which decision matters more than the opinion count.
AI legal ethics has become a jurisdiction by jurisdiction compliance question for US law firms and every state bar AI guidance document answers it differently. Some state bars have issued formal AI ethics opinions for lawyers, others have released practical guidance short of a formal opinion and a number of jurisdictions had no AI specific AI rules for lawyers in place as of 2026. All of this guidance builds on the same foundation, the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on competence, confidentiality and supervision but how each state applies that foundation to generative AI varies significantly in scope, timing and emphasis.
For firms practicing in more than one jurisdiction or advising clients on AI and legal ethics generally, that variation is the real risk: assuming your state's position reflects a national consensus can leave a firm out of step with its own bar. This guide answers that question directly ‘’Which states have issued AI ethics opinions comparing where each state stands as of the 2026 update and summarizing the guidance most relevant to how law firms adopt and use AI in practice.
As of 2026, the most precise answer is that 15 issuing US jurisdictions have issued formal AI ethics opinions for lawyers: 13 state-level authorities, the District of Columbia Bar, and the New York City Bar Association. A broader review of state bar AI guidance identifies 38 jurisdictions with some form of official AI-related material, including formal opinions, practical guidance, task-force reports or court-related directives; on that broader 51-jurisdiction basis, 13 have no identified AI-specific material. For law firms, the key distinction is whether the authority is a formal opinion, nonbinding guidance, or a proposal. Despite differences in format and timing, the AI legal ethics by state landscape converges on the same core principles almost everywhere:
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| Jurisdiction | Opinion or guidance | Year | Main AI legal ethics focus |
| Alabama | Formal Opinion 2026-01 | 2026 | Competence, confidentiality, supervision, verification, candor, and reasonable fees |
| Alaska | Ethics Opinion 2025-1 | 2025 | Competent use of AI, protection of client confidences, tool due diligence, and output verification |
| District of Columbia | Ethics Opinion 388 | 2024 | Competence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, fees and preservation of the client file |
| Kentucky | KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 | 2024 | Competence, confidentiality, client communication, disclosure and billing |
| Mississippi | Ethics Opinion 267 | 2024 | Confidentiality, informed consent where appropriate, verification and reasonable billing |
| New Mexico | Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 | 2024 | Competence, confidentiality, conflict screening, supervision, candor and fees |
California has not issued a formal AI legal ethics opinion for lawyers. Instead, the State Bar of California, through COPRAC, issued Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law. Originally approved in November 2023 and revised in May 2026, the document applies existing professional-responsibility duties to AI use by lawyers and law firms. It is influential California generative AI guidance but it is not a binding disciplinary rule or a formal state-bar ethics opinion.
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| Detail | Summary |
| Issued / updated | November 2023; revised May 2026 |
| Issuing body | State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) |
| Status | Practical guidance, not a formal ethics opinion |
| Main duties | Competence, confidentiality, verification, supervision, client communication, candor and fees |
The guidance applies existing duties rather than creating new AI-specific rules:
Florida provides law firms with two complementary AI authorities: Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 governs lawyers’ ethical use of generative AI, while the 2026 Florida Supreme Court rule governs the accuracy of legal authorities cited in court filings. Opinion 24-1 is an advisory ethics opinion, not a binding rule but it remains a leading Florida AI legal ethics opinion for lawyers and law firms.
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| Authority | Effective date | Status | Main requirement |
| Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 | January 19, 2024 | Advisory ethics opinion | Addresses confidentiality, AI competence, verification, client communication, fees, supervision and advertising |
| Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) | June 15, 2026 | Binding statewide court rule | Requires the signer of a filing to represent that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited |
2026 Florida filing update
Effective June 15, 2026, Rule 2.515(d)(2) requires the signer of a Florida court filing to confirm that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. The rule does not require AI-use disclosure, but it reinforces lawyers’ responsibility to verify AI-assisted research and citations before filing
New York’s AI framework involves separate bar and court authorities. The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) issued a 2024 AI Task Force report while the New York City Bar Association issued formal ethics opinions for lawyers using generative AI.
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| Authority | AI authority | Date | Status |
| NYSBA | Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence | April 6, 2024 | Guidance and recommendations; not a formal ethics opinion |
| NYC Bar | Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law | August 7, 2024 | Formal ethics opinion |
| NYC Bar | Formal Opinion 2025-6: AI recording, transcription and summaries | December 22, 2025 | Formal ethics opinion |
For New York AI legal ethics opinion compliance, NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5 is the principal source. It permits generative-AI use, but lawyers and law firms remain responsible for:
2026 court update: Part 161 permits AI-assisted court papers in New York state courts but lawyers must independently review filings for accuracy and comply with any additional court-specific AI requirements.
Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705, issued in February 2025, applies existing Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct to lawyers’ use of generative AI. For a Texas SBOT Opinion 705 AI analysis, the central principle is clear: lawyers may use AI but they remain fully responsible for its accuracy, confidentiality protections and ethical use in client matters and court filings.
Lawyers must still evaluate whether disclosure or client consent is required when confidential information may be shared with a third-party AI provider. Individual courts and judges may also impose separate filing or AI-disclosure requirements.
A permissive state-bar opinion doesn't override a court's AI requirements. In AI and legal ethics, state guidance governs a lawyer's professional duties; a court's local rule, standing order, or judge-specific practice governs filings in that forum. Firms must satisfy both.
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| Authority | Controls | Practical effect |
| State bar ethics opinion/guidance | Competence, confidentiality, supervision, fees, communication, candor | AI is permitted if used responsibly and verified |
| Federal/state procedural rules | Accuracy and attorney certifications for filings | The signing lawyer stays accountable for all court representations |
| District-wide or judge-specific AI order | Disclosure, certification, or restrictions on AI-assisted filings | Controls for every matter before that court or judge |
A bar may allow AI with human review but a judge can still require disclosure of the tool used, identification of AI-assisted portions, certification that citations were checked or an outright restriction. Some federal standing orders require exactly this, tying certification to Rule 11 standards.
Comply with a court's disclosure/certification requirement even if the state bar doesn't mandate it.
A filing signature already certifies reasonable investigation; AI use doesn't lower that bar.
Review local rules, standing orders and individual judge practices before filing AI-assisted content.
Court compliance doesn't replace confidentiality, supervision, or fee obligations.
Make sure to check the state ethics authority first, then the specific court and judge, before any AI-assisted filing goes out.
Fifteen jurisdictions have gone as far as a formal opinion; another twenty-three have said something short of that; thirteen have said nothing at all and none of that changes what's actually expected of a lawyer using AI. California never issued a binding opinion and still gets cited more than states that did. New York has three separate authorities that get routinely confused with each other. Florida and Texas both wrote formal opinions and then let a court rule pick up where the opinion left off. That's the actual state of play in 2026: the opinion number matters less than knowing which authority controls which decision, your bar for how you use the tool, your court for what you file with it.
Has your state issued anything since this update or is it still one of the thirteen with nothing on the books? Worth checking directly with your bar, this is a page that will need revisiting well before 2027.
Not having a state-specific AI opinion does not mean lawyers can use AI without ethical limits; existing rules on competence, confidentiality, supervision and candor still apply.
State bar opinions govern lawyers’ professional duties, but courts may impose additional requirements for AI-assisted filings, such as disclosure, verification, or certification. Lawyers should therefore check both state bar guidance and the rules or orders of the specific court.
AI legal ethics guidance can change as states respond to new AI tools and emerging risks, so law firms should check for updates regularly. California, for example, has proposed AI-related changes to its professional-conduct rules in 2026.
No. Disclosure requirements vary by jurisdiction and circumstance; some guidance may require client communication or consent for certain uses, while ordinary AI-assisted tasks may not always require disclosure.
Tell me about the system or workflow you are working on.
30-minute intro call on Calendly
| North Carolina | 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 | 2024 | Competence, confidential information, supervision, reasonable fees and client communication |
| Oregon | Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 | 2025 | Confidentiality, informed consent, AI-output verification and supervisory responsibilities |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 | 2024 | Competence, confidentiality, conflicts, candor, supervision and AI-related billing |
| Virginia | Approved Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 | 2025 | Reasonable fees and the effect of generative AI on time-based billing; final approval is confirmed. |
| Washington | WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 | 2025 | Competence, confidentiality, supervision and verification of AI-assisted work |
| West Virginia | West Virginia Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-01 | 2024 | Informed written client consent, confidentiality, verification and supervisory duties |
