State Bar AI Guidance for Lawyers: What Your Jurisdiction Has Said

Living page — last updated June 2026. State bar AI guidance is evolving rapidly. Several states have issued formal opinions or guidance documents since 2023; more are expected. Check your state bar's ethics resources directly for the most current position. This page covers the landscape as of the last update.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 sets out how the Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply when lawyers use generative AI. But the Model Rules are adopted by states, often with modifications — and state bars are issuing their own AI-specific guidance that varies from the ABA's position in important ways. Some states require more than the ABA asks. Some are more specific about particular tools or practices. Some have not yet addressed AI at all.

If you practice in a state that has issued formal guidance, that guidance — not just the ABA's analysis — governs your ethical obligations. This guide covers the landscape across U.S. jurisdictions: what states have issued, what common themes have emerged, and what to do if your state has not yet weighed in.

Why state bar guidance may go further than the ABA

The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 applies the Model Rules as adopted and is interpretive, not binding. State bar ethics opinions, by contrast, are issued under each state's own rules and carry weight in disciplinary proceedings in that jurisdiction. Where a state bar has spoken — whether through a formal opinion, a guidance document, a task force report, or a standing committee opinion — that is the authoritative statement of what the rules require in that state.

Several patterns have emerged in state guidance that go further than the ABA's analysis:

Explicit disclosure requirements. Some states have taken positions suggesting or requiring that attorneys proactively disclose AI use to clients in specific circumstances, going beyond the ABA's more conditional analysis.

Fee transparency. Some state guidance has addressed the billing question more specifically, including how to handle cost pass-throughs and fee agreements that predate AI-assisted work.

Specific tool categories. Some guidance has addressed questions about particular categories of tools — consumer chatbots, courtroom presentation AI, document review platforms — with greater specificity than the ABA's general analysis.

Jurisdiction-specific context. States with specific court rules on e-filing, electronic signatures, or courtroom technology sometimes integrate AI questions into those existing frameworks.

The landscape by jurisdiction

The following reflects state bar activity as of this writing. Treat this as a starting point, not a comprehensive current record — check your state bar's ethics resources directly.

States with formal opinions or guidance documents

California — The California State Bar has been active on AI ethics, producing guidance materials and a formal report on AI and the practice of law. California's guidance has addressed confidentiality, competence, and billing, and the State Bar has issued recommendations for lawyers using generative AI tools. The California guidance generally aligns with ABA Formal Opinion 512 but includes California-specific context given the state's technology industry and robust privacy law environment.

Florida — The Florida Bar has addressed AI ethics through its ethics and professionalism resources, including guidance on the use of AI tools in legal practice. Florida's ethics framework has traditionally been detailed on specific technology questions.

Michigan — The State Bar of Michigan issued ethics guidance addressing AI use in legal practice, covering confidentiality obligations, verification requirements, and the duty of competence as applied to AI tools.

New Jersey — The New Jersey State Bar and its ethics committees have addressed AI-related questions, including guidance on how the state's professional conduct rules apply to AI use.

New York — The New York State Bar Association's Task Force on Artificial Intelligence produced a substantial report on AI in the legal profession, covering ethics, confidentiality, and practice management. Multiple New York bar associations (including county bar associations) have issued their own guidance. Court rules in New York have also addressed AI disclosure in certain contexts.

North Carolina — The North Carolina State Bar has engaged with AI ethics questions through its ethics committee.

Pennsylvania — The Pennsylvania Bar Association has published guidance on AI and the practice of law.

Virginia — The Virginia State Bar has addressed AI ethics, including through its Legal Ethics Opinions.

States with active task forces or expected guidance

Many additional states have established AI task forces, working groups, or ethics committees studying the area. The ABA Journal and state bar journals are reliable sources for tracking new opinions as they issue.

States with no formal guidance yet

A number of states have not yet issued formal AI guidance. If you practice in one of these states, ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the primary reference — but it does not displace your obligation to apply your state's own rules of professional conduct as they exist, even without AI-specific interpretation.

Common themes across state guidance

Despite variation in specifics, most state AI guidance that has been issued shares common themes:

Competence includes understanding AI limitations. Every state that has addressed AI has affirmed that the duty of competence requires lawyers to understand enough about how AI tools work to use them appropriately — including understanding that they hallucinate and that their outputs require verification.

Confidentiality requires tool-level assessment. States consistently require lawyers to assess whether an AI tool's terms of service and data handling practices are consistent with their duty of confidentiality before sharing client information. This requires actual investigation, not assumption.

Supervision duty applies. AI-generated content is treated as work product that requires attorney review before use — not an authoritative output that can be submitted without verification.

Billing must be reasonable. State guidance on billing has generally affirmed the ABA's position: efficiency gains from AI reduce billable time; the pre-AI time cannot be charged for work the AI performed.

Disclosure varies by state. This is the area of greatest variation. Some states require disclosure in specific circumstances; others apply the ABA's more conditional analysis. Check your state's specific position.

Court-level AI rules and standing orders

Alongside bar association guidance, courts are increasingly addressing AI through standing orders, local rules, and individual judicial orders. These vary enormously:

• Some federal district courts have issued standing orders requiring AI disclosure in filings
• Some judges require attorneys to certify that AI-generated content has been verified
• Some courts are silent, leaving the professional conduct rules as the only framework
• Some courts have issued guidance following specific incidents

Before filing in any court where you are using AI-assisted drafting, check the judge's standing orders and the court's local rules. This is part of the competence duty — knowing the rules of the tribunal.

How to find your state's current position

The most reliable path to current state bar guidance on AI:

1. Your state bar's ethics opinions database. Search for recent opinions using terms like "artificial intelligence," "generative AI," or "technology." Most state bar ethics databases are searchable by keyword and date.

2. Your state bar journal. Recent issues typically cover new guidance and emerging ethics questions.

3. State bar ethics hotlines. Most state bars have an ethics hotline for lawyers seeking guidance on specific questions. If you face a specific AI-related question, a call to the ethics hotline can get you a position that is specific to your jurisdiction.

4. ABA resources. The ABA tracks state bar ethics opinions on technology and AI; its resources can point you to state-specific activity.

5. Court websites. For court-specific rules and standing orders, check the court's own website and the standing orders page for any judge on an active case.

What to do in the absence of state guidance

If your state has not issued AI-specific guidance, you are not without an ethical framework. Apply the following:

1. Your state's Model Rules equivalents. Competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, and fee rules all apply to AI use under your state's current rules, even without AI-specific interpretation.

2. ABA Formal Opinion 512. Use it as the interpretive analysis that most disciplinary bodies and courts will look to in the absence of state-specific guidance.

3. A conservative default. In the absence of guidance, act as if your state's ethics counsel would scrutinize your AI use under the same framework as the states that have issued formal opinions. The competence, confidentiality, verification, and billing standards that state opinions consistently require are good practice regardless of whether your state has formally required them.

4. Monitor your state bar. The pace of state AI guidance issuance has been rapid. Even if your state has not acted yet, it may do so. Set a reminder to check your state bar's ethics resources quarterly.

For the ABA framework that underlies all of this, see ABA Formal Opinion 512 explained. For putting a compliance framework in place before you need it, see writing your law firm's AI use policy.

Related reading: ABA Formal Opinion 512 explained | Writing your law firm's AI use policy | Client confidentiality and AI tools