AI and Attorney Ethics Rules: 50-State Survey

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has made many tasks easier to accomplish than they would be with human effort alone. The legal profession is no exception. Many attorneys have begun to integrate generative AI into their work, benefiting from the improvements in efficiency and potentially quality that it offers. However, lawyers still must adhere to the rules of professional conduct provided by state bar associations. These often echo the Model Rules of Professional Conduct developed by the American Bar Association. The ABA Model Rules impose duties such as:

• Providing competent representation
• Keeping client information confidential
• Communicating with a client
• Properly supervising subordinates and assistants
• Charging reasonable fees

The ABA has provided a formal opinion that discusses the impact of generative AI on compliance with each of these duties. For example, a lawyer should continue to exercise their own skill and judgment regarding legal work. They should not rely on generative AI alone to provide legal advice or handle tasks that require specialized expertise. When an attorney inputs information related to their representation of a client into a generative AI tool, they should consider the risk that unauthorized people may get access to the information.

In some cases, according to the ABA opinion, a lawyer may need to disclose their use of generative AI to a client or get their consent to use a generative AI tool. (However, the opinion acknowledges that this is not always necessary.) An attorney who manages a firm should develop policies for the appropriate use of generative AI tools, and supervising attorneys should try to ensure that subordinates and non-lawyer staff understand the implications of using these tools. If the use of generative AI allows a lawyer to complete a task more efficiently, they should bill for their actual time if they bill the client according to an hourly rate, rather than the time that they would have spent if not for AI assistance. If a lawyer charges a flat fee for a service that the use of AI makes more efficient, they should consider reducing the fee to account for their reduced effort.

Meanwhile, some state bar associations have released their own opinions or guidance on this topic. Below is a summary of these efforts to reconcile the benefits of cutting-edge technology with the traditional obligations of attorneys. Note that this landscape continues to evolve rapidly. Attorneys should check with their governing bar association for the latest rules and insights. Courts also may have local rules specific to this issue. (A resource on AI orders compiles many court orders, rules, and guidelines involving AI use.)

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• Washington, D.C.
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Alabama Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but an article in a bar publication may be useful.

The Alabama State Bar has said that it is researching how AI is shaping the legal industry. Meanwhile, in August 2024, a publication released by the State Bar provided an article discussing generative AI and legal ethics. Some of the main insights include:

• AI should never be used as a substitute for a lawyer’s professional judgment
• A lawyer must adequately understand the technology and its limitations
• A lawyer who expects a need to use AI in a legal matter may need to cover the topic of data confidentiality and use in a representation agreement
• Law firms should have policies concerning the use of AI, and output from AI should be reviewed to ensure that it conforms with appropriate standards
• Lawyers should disclose the methodologies, costs, and limitations of AI to clients
• A lawyer may have an obligation to disclose their use of AI to a court

However, the author does not hold a position with the State Bar, and these are not official guidelines.

Alaska Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The Alaska Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Arizona Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal set of ethical best practices has been issued.

Established by the Arizona Supreme Court, the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts has released a set of ethical best practices on using generative AI. Some key points include:

• Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of using generative AI
• Lawyers must check their work product for accuracy and must not defer to the judgment of generative AI
• When in any doubt, lawyers should not enter confidential or non-public information in a generative AI tool
• While lawyers do not need to tell clients about every use of AI, disclosure is required if the client would need to know about its use to make an informed decision
• Lawyers who use hourly billing cannot bill clients for time saved by using AI
• Lawyers should take care that their use of generative AI does not promote biases
• Supervising lawyers should consider adopting a written policy that regulates the use of generative AI

In general, the guidelines note that the use of generative AI does not alter or lessen the ethical obligations of attorneys.

Arkansas Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

The Arkansas Bar Association has not addressed this topic, although an Artificial Intelligence Task Force has been formed.

California Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

The State Bar of California provides practical guidance.

The Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of the State Bar of California has produced practical guidance for the use of generative AI in practicing law. Here are some of the key points:

• Duty of confidentiality: a lawyer must not input confidential information of the client into a generative AI solution that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections
• Duties of competence and diligence: a lawyer must critically review, validate, and correct both the input and the output of generative AI to ensure that the content accurately reflects and supports the interests and priorities of the client, and a lawyer cannot delegate their professional judgment to generative AI
• Duty to comply with the law: a lawyer must not counsel a client to engage (or help a client engage) in conduct that the lawyer knows is a violation of a law when using generative AI tools
• Duty of supervision: supervising attorneys should establish clear policies for the use of generative AI and make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm takes measures that give reasonable assurance that its lawyers and non-lawyers comply with their professional obligations
• Duty of communication: a lawyer should consider disclosing to a client that they intend to use generative AI in the representation
• Fees: a lawyer must not charge hourly fees for the time saved by using generative AI
• Duty of candor to tribunal: a lawyer must review generative AI outputs for accuracy before submitting them to the court, correcting any errors or misleading statements
• Anti-discrimination: a lawyer should be aware of possible biases due to the fact that some generative AI is trained on biased information

The State Bar emphasizes that the document provides guiding principles rather than best practices.

Colorado Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

The Colorado Supreme Court has asked the Standing Committee on the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct to form a subcommittee to consider recommendations for amendments to the Rules to address attorney use of AI tools. Meanwhile, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice and a Colorado Court of Appeals Judge wrote an article for a Colorado Bar publication. It highlights considerations such as these:

• Duty of competence: does a lawyer need to have a basic understanding of how AI resources work and their limits?
• Duty of communication: does a lawyer need to get informed consent from a client before using an AI tool to draft a document on their behalf?
• Reasonable fees: should a lawyer consider the use or non-use of AI in setting their standard rates?
• Duty of confidentiality: what safeguards must a lawyer use to protect confidential client information?
• Duty of candor to tribunal: should a lawyer assume that an AI tool has generated only a rough first draft that requires a complete review and thorough editing?
• Duty of supervision: what type of training does a supervising lawyer need to provide to ensure that team members are properly trained in using AI resources?
• Bias: is a lawyer’s failure to detect bias in an AI-generated pleading or document professional misconduct?

Connecticut Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

The Connecticut Bar Association has formed a Generative AI Committee that will investigate current and emerging AI technologies and their impact on the practice of law. In addition, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has formed a Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System, which will determine whether the rules of professional responsibility should be amended to ensure that lawyers, judges, and court staff use AI in a responsible and sustainable way that is consistent with the principles of fairness, accountability, equality, and transparency.

Delaware Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue seemingly is being explored.

Following the introduction of generative AI, the Delaware Supreme Court has expanded the mission of the Delaware Commission on Law and Technology to address lawyer competency.

Florida Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

The Florida Bar has provided an advisory ethics opinion.

Released in January 2024, Opinion 24-1 emphasizes that lawyers using generative AI must take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of client information, develop policies for the reasonable oversight of generative AI use, ensure that fees and costs are reasonable, and comply with applicable ethics and advertising regulations. Some more specific points include:

• A lawyer should get informed consent from a client before using a third-party generative AI program if this would involve the disclosure of confidential information
• A lawyer using generative AI should take reasonable precautions to avoid the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information and should not attempt to access information previously provided to the generative AI by other lawyers
• A lawyer must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research performed by generative AI
• A lawyer must not delegate to generative AI any act that could constitute the practice of law, such as a function that requires a lawyer’s personal judgment and participation
• If generative AI programs make a lawyer’s work more efficient, the increase in efficiency must not result in falsely inflated claims of time for billing purposes
• A lawyer must inform a client, preferably in writing, of their intent to charge the client the actual cost of using generative AI
• A lawyer using a generative AI chatbot for advertising and intake must inform prospective clients that they are communicating with an AI program
• A lawyer cannot claim that their generative AI is superior to generative AI used by other lawyers or law firms unless these claims are objectively verifiable

In general, a lawyer can use generative AI only to the extent that they can reasonably guarantee compliance with their ethical obligations.

Georgia Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

The State Bar of Georgia has formed a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology, which will examine whether the current ethical rules and Bar policies are sufficient regarding a lawyer’s technology-related actions, omissions, or conduct.

Hawaii Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald has issued an order establishing a Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. This committee will examine issues and make recommendations related to the use of AI in a report due in December 2025. Meanwhile, Hawaii State Bar Association President Jesse Souki has noted that AI cannot replace the critical thinking, judgment, and ethical oversight of experienced lawyers.

Idaho Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some unofficial recommendations are available.

A blog post published by the Idaho State Bar provides some unofficial recommendations. These include:

• Understanding the capabilities and limitations of generative AI
• Taking steps to safeguard client information
• Making sure that clients understand how AI is being used
• Billing in a way that reflects actual time spent and any associated costs
• Verifying the accuracy of AI-generated content
• Implementing policies and training programs within law firms to ensure that subordinates understand the ethical implications of using AI tools
• Making sure that AI-generated marketing content complies with ethical rules

The author currently serves on the executive board of the Professionalism and Ethics Section of the Idaho State Bar.

Some preliminary recommendations are available.

The Illinois State Bar Association asked an Artificial Intelligence Committee to provide recommendations on how to handle the impact of AI on the practice of law. The resulting report describes how various ethical duties would apply in this context:

• Competence: a lawyer should be aware of the benefits and risks of AI, while best practices would require personally checking any fact, law, or citation generated by AI
• Communication: clients should be made aware that part of a lawyer’s work product is created by AI and should grant informed consent to its use, while best practices would require specifically addressing the use of AI in a representation agreement
• Confidentiality: best practices would require investigating the use of AI before deploying it, and at least understanding how to use it without inadvertently disclosing client confidences
• Exercising independent judgment: best practices would require not merely accepting the judgment of AI

More generally, the report states that any work product generated by AI should be thoroughly reviewed by an attorney, similar to how a partner reviews an associate’s work. It also provides some detailed suggestions for addressing the impact of AI on attorney fees, including transitioning away from the billable hour as the dominant business model. The report concludes by advising the State Bar Association to educate attorneys and staff on AI, suggest recommendations to the courts and bar on rules and procedures for using AI, and establish a standing committee on AI in the legal profession, among other recommendations.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Supreme Court has adopted an AI policy for the courts, which notes that attorneys are accountable for their final work product. They must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations. They also must understand both general AI capabilities and the specific AI tools being used before using any of this technology. AI use must adhere to laws and regulations concerning privacy and confidentiality.

Indiana Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The Indiana State Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Iowa Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available, although some resources are provided.

The Iowa State Bar Association blog provides a list of resources on AI for lawyers. The State Bar Association also published an article by an unaffiliated attorney discussing some ethical issues related to AI use. Points raised by the article include:

• Lawyers feeding personal client information into an AI model must be careful to install safeguards for their clients’ data and ensure that an AI engineer who is training or operating the model has signed a confidentiality agreement
• Lawyers must understand how AI models work and are trained
• Lawyers should be aware that AI may contain biases
• Lawyers must ensure appropriate human oversight of all AI use
• Lawyers should bear in mind that AI should augment rather than replacing human expertise

Kansas Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available

The Kansas Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Kentucky Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

The Kentucky Bar Association has issued an ethics opinion.

Issued in March 2024, Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 provides several general guidelines for the use of AI, such as:

• An attorney has an ethical duty to keep abreast of the use of AI in legal practice
• An attorney does not need to disclose the routine use of AI-generated research to a client unless the work is outsourced to a third party or the client is charged for the cost of AI (or court rules require the disclosure)
• A lawyer must consider reducing the fees charged to a client when appropriate if the use of AI reduces the time and effort that the lawyer spends on a matter
• An attorney may charge a client for expenses related to using AI if the client agrees to make this reimbursement in advance, and the agreement is confirmed in writing, but an attorney cannot charge a client for the cost of AI training or keeping abreast of AI developments
• An attorney who uses AI has a continuing duty to safeguard confidential client information
• An attorney must review court rules and procedures related to the use of AI, and they must review submissions to a court that used generative AI to confirm the accuracy of their content
• A managing or supervising attorney must ensure that policies and procedures regarding AI are in place at their law firm, and training must take place to assure compliance

The opinion proceeds to provide more detailed commentary on issues related to the duties of competence and communication, attorney fees, confidentiality of client information, compliance with court rules, and the responsibilities of supervising attorneys.

Louisiana Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

David Becker, General Counsel for the Louisiana Supreme Court, wrote a letter in early 2024 to the President of the Louisiana State Bar Association. The letter states that the ethical and professional rules for attorneys are robust and broad enough to cover AI issues without adjustments. It further notes that attorneys in Louisiana are ultimately responsible for their work product and the pleadings that they file in court, maintaining competence in technology, protecting confidential client information, and avoiding making misrepresentations of fact or law. These obligations are unchanged or unaffected by AI.

Maine Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The Maine State Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Maryland Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some informal insights are available.

The Maryland State Bar Association published an article by a staff member in May 2024 that highlights ethical concerns involving AI for a lawyer to consider. It offers insights such as these:

• Lawyers should understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools that they use
• An attorney should review all work products produced by AI to ensure their accuracy and relevance
• A lawyer should not substitute AI for their professional judgment
• Attorneys may want to add language to representation agreements notifying clients that they may use AI
• The use of AI may affect the reasonableness of fees if it substantially reduces time and effort
• Lawyers must ensure that AI tools do not compromise client data, and they may want to take reasonable efforts to prevent accidental or unauthorized disclosure
• Managing and supervising attorneys must supervise the use of AI by subordinate attorneys and non-attorneys
• Lawyers may want to clearly disclose the use of AI chatbots to prospective clients
• Lawyers should recognize the potential prejudices or biases in AI algorithms

However, Maryland does not have specific professional rules addressing this topic.

Massachusetts Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some insights are available.

An Assistant Bar Counsel to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers has written a white paper on ethical considerations for the use of AI in practicing law. Here are some of the insights that it provides:

• Lawyers should be familiar with the risks and limitations of AI, and they must take adequate measures to maintain authority, oversight, and control over an AI tool
• Lawyers must ensure that adequate confidentiality protections are in place, even when using private AI applications, and they should not enter confidential information when they are using a non-private system
• Law firms must have clear policies and procedures for technology use, and they must ensure that lawyers and non-lawyers are trained, monitored, and provided with adequate resources to ensure compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct
• Lawyers may need to consult clients about the means of implementing AI and the associated fees, although this depends on the circumstances
• Lawyers should beware of potential conflicts of interest if their firm wants to use an AI tool that incorporates confidential information from current or former clients
• Lawyers should not overlook the risk of AI perpetuating bias and discrimination

Attorneys also can consult the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program for more advice on technology usage.

Michigan Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A set of general guidelines is available.

The State Bar of Michigan provides FAQs involving the use of AI by attorneys. Some of these insights include:

• Lawyers must be informed and up to date on current technology, and they must identify the technology needed to effectively represent a client
• Lawyers are responsible for any incorrect information generated by an AI program
• Lawyers must check cites and information produced by AI for accuracy
• Lawyers must use extreme caution prior to inputting any client confidential data into an AI tool, and they must receive the client’s consent before inputting any protected information
• Lawyers do not need to inform clients that they are using AI unless the information being entered requires the client’s consent due to confidentiality concerns
• Lawyers do not need to inform courts that they are using AI unless the court requests this information

The FAQs also list the specific Rules of Professional Conduct that are likely to be relevant to this topic.

Minnesota Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some general guidance is available.

The Minnesota State Bar Association Assembly adopted a report and recommendations from a working group on AI in June 2024. The report discusses the unauthorized practice of law rather than the rules of professional conduct specifically, while noting that the rules already offer good guidance on this topic. However, part of the report provides insights such as these:

• Lawyers must ensure that AI output is accurate
• Lawyers must ensure that AI tools ensure client confidentiality
• Lawyers must properly supervise and delegate responsibilities, including delegation to machines
• Lawyers should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with AI
• The use of AI tools may affect whether a fee is reasonable

The State Bar Association has announced that an AI Committee will explore recommendations from the working group while monitoring developments in AI as they affect the legal profession.

Mississippi Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal ethics opinion has been published.

The Mississippi Bar has published Ethics Opinion No. 267 on the topic of ethical AI use. Some key points include:

• A lawyer must take reasonable measures and precautions to protect the confidentiality of client information when using generative AI
• A lawyer must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of work performed by generative AI
• A lawyer must review costs and fees to ensure that any billing practices do not duplicate charges or inflate billable hours
• A lawyer must disclose to the client that AI is being used with respect to legal matters entrusted to the attorney by the client in certain circumstances

Overall, a lawyer may use generative AI if they have taken appropriate steps to protect client confidential information, are competent to use the technology, verify the accuracy of AI output, use reasonable billing practices, and get the client’s informed consent when appropriate.

An informal opinion on attorney use of AI is available.

In April 2024, the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri released Informal Opinion 2024-11 on the ethical use of AI by attorneys. Some of its key points include:

• Lawyers should understand the risks and benefits of implementing AI
• Lawyers must carefully assess any generative AI platforms or services to ensure that confidentiality of client information is maintained
• When court orders or rules implicate the use of AI tools, lawyers must not knowingly disobey these obligations
• Lawyers must protect and maintain professional independence and independent professional judgment, rather than relying solely on content created by AI
• If lawyers use content produced with AI assistance, they must verify the accuracy and content of the product
• Law firms that use generative AI should develop an ethical framework for its use, and appropriate training should be provided for lawyers and non-lawyers
• Lawyers should consider how the use of AI may affect the reasonableness of fees

The opinion acknowledges that it does not provide an exclusive list of ethical considerations, and lawyers should consider all the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct when concerns regarding AI use arise.

Montana Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available, although the state bar provides a generic resource.

The State Bar of Montana makes available a generic article by an unaffiliated, out-of-state attorney and two tech experts discussing some potential concerns. Advice includes validating content produced by AI, getting the agreement of clients that AI will be used, not sharing AI outputs with unauthorized individuals, keeping up with threats to the security of AI tools, and staying alert to the risk of bias in AI training data, among other points.

Nebraska Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The Nebraska State Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Nevada Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

The state bar is exploring the issue, and an ethics specialist offers some basic tips.

The State Bar of Nevada has formed an AI Advisory Group to help attorneys navigate this evolving landscape. Meanwhile, a member of the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility has published an article with a few basic tips. For example, attorneys should know what the AI technology that they plan to use is capable of doing, while understanding its potential flaws. They also should not blindly rely on AI to describe case law or the facts of a case, since they have a duty not to make a false statement of fact or law to a court. In addition, the author recommends finding out what data is collected from using an AI platform and how that data is used. This can help attorneys comply with their duty of confidentiality.

New Hampshire Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some informal guidance is available.

The Ethics Committee of the New Hampshire Bar Association has written an article about the ethics of using AI in practice. It notes that an attorney who does not properly vet AI-produced information may violate their duties of candor to the tribunal, fairness to the opposing party and counsel, and truthfulness in statements to others, as well as their duties to exercise independent professional judgment and refrain from dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Some other key points include:

• A lawyer should learn how an AI tool works to avoid disclosure of confidential information, including reviewing the terms and conditions and privacy policy
• Managing lawyers must oversee subordinates (and lawyers must monitor non-lawyers) to check their use of AI and ensure compliance with ethics rules
• Law firms should create policies for AI use
• Lawyers must maintain a level of competency in technology as it relates to the legal profession

Another article from the Ethics Committee discusses concerns specific to drafting documents with generative AI assistance. It provides some examples of when this may be ethical, while emphasizing that lawyers should review the AI’s terms and conditions to understand how it works and avoid issues such as copyright infringement.

New Jersey Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Preliminary guidelines are available.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has published preliminary guidelines on the use of AI by attorneys. The guidelines explain that AI does not change ethical duties. Some specific points to bear in mind include:

• A lawyer has an ethical duty to check and verify all information generated by AI to ensure that it is accurate
• A lawyer who uses AI in preparing legal pleadings, arguments, or evidence remains responsible to ensure the validity of those submissions
• While a lawyer does not need to tell clients every time that they use AI, a lawyer must inform the client of the lawyer’s use of AI if a client asks if the lawyer is using AI or if the client cannot make an informed decision about the representation without knowing that the lawyer is using AI
• A lawyer must ensure the security of an AI system before entering any non-public client information
• Lawyers who oversee other lawyers or non-lawyer staff must ensure the ethical use of AI by people under their supervision

The guidelines also note briefly that the use of AI likely will affect lawyer billing practices and advertising, although those issues are not directly addressed.

New Mexico Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal ethics advisory opinion has been published.

The State Bar of New Mexico has issued Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 on using generative AI in the practice of law. Some key points include:

• Lawyers must understand the parameters and policies of the generative AI tools that they use
• Lawyers must refrain from inputting confidential information into generative AI tools that lack adequate confidentiality and security protections
• Lawyers must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of research, citations, and analysis conducted by a generative AI tool that they use to draft documents submitted to a court
• Lawyers must only charge clients for time and labor actually incurred
• Supervising lawyers must develop appropriate policies and procedures on ethical AI use and train other lawyers and staff in the law firm

In certain situations, lawyers may need to discuss their use of generative AI with a client, such as when the use of generative AI plays a significant role in producing the final product, a client asks about its use, or its use requires the lawyer to disclose confidential client data to obtain a resulting product.

A report and recommendations are available.

In April 2024, the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence released a report and recommendations that address ethical concerns for lawyers. Here are some of the key points:

• Attorneys cannot rely on technology without verification, but instead may use AI as a starting point while independently reviewing case citations, arguments, and other outputs
• Attorneys must identify, acknowledge, and correct mistakes made or represented to the court
• Attorneys should be knowledgeable about the technology that they are using or ask for assistance from others who understand its use and limitations, such as IT specialists
• Lawyers should be mindful of a client’s privacy when entering information into AI engines, and they must take reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent and unauthorized disclosure of or access to client information
• The duty to supervise non-lawyers involved in client representation includes non-human entities
• AI programs that do not involve a human lawyer in providing legal advice may be unauthorized practice of law

Recommendations at the end of the report include commissioning a standing section or committee to oversee periodic updates to its guidelines.

North Carolina Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal ethics opinion has been published.

The North Carolina State Bar has released 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 on a lawyer’s professional responsibility when using AI in a law practice. Some key points include:

• A lawyer using AI must do so competently and securely, and they must exercise their independent judgment in supervising the use of these processes
• A lawyer may input a client’s information to a third-party AI program if this is sufficiently secure and complies with the lawyer’s obligations to ensure that client information will not be inadvertently disclosed or accessed by unauthorized individuals
• A lawyer who employs AI in their practice and adopts the tool’s product as their own is professionally responsible for the use of the tool’s product
• A lawyer generally does not need to inform a client that they are using an AI tool to complete ordinary tasks, but advanced informed consent is required if the lawyer delegates substantive tasks to an AI tool
• If the use of AI results in greater efficiencies in providing legal services, a lawyer must not inaccurately bill a client based on the time-value represented by the end product if they had not used AI

The opinion also cites various resources that lawyers can explore to improve their understanding of the topic.

North Dakota Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The State Bar Association of North Dakota has not addressed this topic.

Ohio Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available, but an article in a bar publication may be useful.

The Ohio Bar provides an article by an unaffiliated attorney discussing the use of AI in the context of some of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Some of the key insights include:

• Client names and sensitive information should not be included in publicly accessible generative AI tools
• Once an attorney becomes aware of an error by AI, the attorney may have an obligation to disclose it, and a misrepresentation of case law should be immediately fixed
• Billable hours should not be inflated to account for efficiency gained by AI use, and attorneys should not bill time to a client to gain general competence in AI
• Attorneys with supervisory authority must reasonably ensure that subordinate attorneys, staff, and vendors are also compliant, which includes a reasonable investigation into the practices of third-party vendors such as technology companies

However, these points represent the views of the author and are not officially adopted in an ethics opinion.

Oklahoma Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

The Oklahoma Bar Association has not addressed this topic.

Oregon Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal opinion has been published.

The Oregon State Bar has issued Formal Opinion No. 2025-205 to address the use of artificial intelligence tools in legal practice. Some key points include:

• Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks associated with the specific use and type of AI being used
• Lawyers may be required to disclose the use of AI to their clients under certain circumstances
• If the use of AI results in significant time savings, lawyers may not engage in billing practices that duplicate charges or falsely inflate billable hours
• Lawyers must align the choice of any technology with ethical mandates concerning client confidentiality and consider whether the client’s consent is required
• Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies regarding the law firm’s permissible use of AI, and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm’s lawyers and non-lawyers comply with their professional obligations
• Lawyers must verify any work done by or with the assistance of any third-party technology

Pennsylvania Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal ethics opinion is available.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee have released Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 on ethical issues regarding AI use. Some of the key points include:

• A lawyer must understand the technology and how it works, understand its benefits and risks, check and verify all citations and the material cited, and educate the client and seek their informed consent to use the technology when the benefits outweigh the risks
• A lawyer must inform the client of the benefits, risks, and limits of the use of generative AI and determine together with the client whether the permissible use of generative AI would serve the client’s objectives
• A lawyer must not input any confidential information of a client into AI that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections
• A lawyer is responsible for a baseless argument, even if it was made with the assistance of AI
• A lawyer must ensure that evidence has not been altered or invented by an AI tool, and they must take reasonable remedial measures upon learning of altered or invented evidence
• When contemplating the use of generative AI, lawyers should consider whether an AI tool can satisfy the Rules of Professional Conduct to the same extent as a human hired to complete the same tasks
• Lawyers must ensure that AI does not give legal advice or engage in tasks that require legal judgment or expertise without the involvement of a licensed attorney

The opinion is advisory and is not binding on the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Rhode Island Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No formal opinion is available, but some informal advice may be useful.

The President of the Rhode Island Bar Association has issued a Bar President’s Message based on ethics opinions from other jurisdictions. This raises points such as these:

• A lawyer must not input confidential client information into a generative AI system that will share the information with third parties, unless the client consents
• Lawyers must be aware that generative AI may include information that is false, inaccurate, or biased
• Supervising lawyers must establish clear policies regarding permissible uses of AI and ensure that subordinates comply with the rules
• Lawyers should consider disclosing to the client the intent to use AI that is not routinely used as part of the representation
• Lawyers must not charge hourly fees for time that would have been spent without the use of generative AI

In general, the President notes that AI tools create a first draft, rather than a final product, and that attorneys must carefully review and analyze data generated by AI when doing their research.

No comprehensive guidance is available, although there are some general parameters.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has issued an interim policy on the use of generative AI tools and systems by the judiciary and court personnel. As the policy notes, it does not specifically address the use of generative AI by lawyers. However, it reminds them that they are responsible to ensure the accuracy of all work product and must use caution when relying on generative AI outputs. They must ensure that using generative AI does not compromise client confidentiality.

South Dakota Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available.

In June 2024, the State Bar of South Dakota Annual Convention featured a session exploring AI and ethics.

Tennessee Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance is available yet, but the issue is being explored.

The Tennessee Bar Association has created an AI Task Force to provide guidance to lawyers on issues involving this technology. Its goals include informing lawyers about the proper use of AI in the substantive practice of law, as well as its potential risks. The Tennessee Bar Association Law Blog contains a 2018 post that generally discusses ethical implications of AI, but this dates from well before the emergence of generative AI models.

Texas Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A formal ethics opinion has been published.

The Texas Committee on Professional Ethics has issued Opinion 705 on ethical issues raised under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by a lawyer’s use of generative AI in the practice of law. Some key points include:

• A lawyer must have a reasonable and current understanding of the technology
• A lawyer must take reasonable precautions to ensure that client confidential information is protected
• A lawyer should verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool, since they are responsible for the work product that they submit regardless of who or what does the original research and drafting
• A lawyer may not charge hourly fees for time saved by using generative AI

The opinion notes that it only provides a snapshot of current ethical concerns and a restatement of ethical principles that lawyers can use as a guide regardless of how the technology evolves.

Utah Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some advice is available.

The Utah State Bar has published a brief overview of ethical considerations for attorneys using ChatGPT in their practices. Some key points of advice include:

• A lawyer should let the client decide whether the lawyer should use ChatGPT after explaining the benefits and risks
• A lawyer should share with AI only the information that they would share with anyone else, omitting names and other identifying information
• A lawyer should charge the client only for the time that they spent using AI, rather than the time that it would have taken them to do the work that AI did for them
• A lawyer should treat AI-generated results like a draft from a law clerk and check any propositions or citations when they are not totally sure about them

Vermont Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

A report by a judiciary subcommittee provides some general guidance.

The Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts released an annual report in March 2025 with appendices that included guidelines from a Disciplinary Rules Subcommittee. Some key points include:

• Lawyers must keep abreast of the risks and benefits of generative AI
• Lawyers should review the terms of service of a generative AI tool to understand whether and how the tool might use input, and they must make reasonable efforts to understand whether and how confidential information will be used, retained, or disclosed
• It would be unreasonable to bill an hourly client for time saved by the use of generative AI
• Lawyers must confirm the accuracy of AI outputs
• The duty to supervise lawyers and non-lawyer assistants may include adopting an office policy on AI use
• A lawyer directed to use AI by a supervisor remains responsible for complying with the rules of professional conduct

The guidance also notes that AI might help lawyers achieve competence in new practice areas more quickly and inexpensively, potentially helping them do more pro bono work.

A model policy for law firms has been produced.

In April 2024, the Virginia Bar Association established a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence to assess the impact of AI on the legal profession. It has released a Model AI Policy for Law Firms, addressing issues such as training, confidentiality, validation and oversight, and the use of AI in decision-making. Meanwhile, the Special Committee on Technology & the Future of Law Practice published an article with some basic advice. This includes understanding the potential hazards of generative AI before incorporating it into legal research and writing, as well as establishing internal controls at law firms on the use of generative AI to ensure that employees have clear standards guiding their work product.

Washington Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

No official guidance yet, but a task force has been formed.

The Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors has created a Legal Technology Task Force as part of responding to the impact of AI on the legal profession. The task force charter describes its goals, including making recommendations that support and strengthen the use of technology in legal practice.

Washington, D.C. Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

An ethics opinion has been issued.

In April 2024, the D.C. Bar published Ethics Opinion 388 on an attorney’s use of generative AI in client matters. Some of the key points include:

• Attorneys should have a reasonable and current understanding of how AI works and what it does, including its potential dangers, limitations, and cost
• Attorneys should have a reasonable basis for trusting AI outputs, or must review and validate them, before incorporating them in their work product for clients or relying on them in support of a legal proceeding
• Attorneys who would provide client confidences and secrets to an AI product should ensure that the product has implemented adequate security standards and controls to ensure confidentiality and protect against unauthorized access and use of client information
• A lawyer should take reasonable measures to ensure that any supervised lawyer or non-lawyer’s use of AI conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct and ethical principles in the opinion
• Using AI outputs that contain misrepresentations of fact or law, or provide fake citations, implicates the lawyer’s duties to the tribunal and to the opposing party and counsel
• A lawyer cannot charge a client for more hours than were actually expended on the matter when the use of AI reduces billable time
• A lawyer should consider whether specific interactions with AI in connection with a client matter should be retained as part of the client file

The opinion explains more generally that technology does not alter the duties that lawyers owe to clients and courts.

West Virginia Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

An ethics opinion has been issued.

The Lawyer Disciplinary Board of West Virginia publishes legal ethics opinions, which include an opinion from June 2024 on AI in the law. Some key points include:

• Lawyers should use AI programs to supplement rather than replace their own reasoning
• AI resources used by a lawyer should be regularly monitored and assessed to minimize the risk of errors or biases that could compromise the quality of work product
• A lawyer should get approval from a client before using generative AI, and this consent must be informed and confirmed in writing
• Lawyers using generative AI should understand its terms of use and privacy policies, and they should not use generative AI unless they are confident that the client’s confidential information will be secure
• Lawyers must supervise the work of the AI used in providing legal services
• Lawyers should view AI at best as a secondary source and should never rely on it as the primary source

The opinion notes more generally that lawyers must continue to use their skills in conjunction with their individual professional and moral judgment.

Wisconsin Attorney Ethics Rules Involving AI

Some basic informal insights are available.

An article published by ethics counsel with the State Bar of Wisconsin discusses ethical considerations when using generative AI. Some key insights include:

• Lawyers must maintain competence in generative AI
• Lawyers who use generative AI must review the original content that it creates and exercise independent professional judgment in assessing its accuracy and efficacy
• Lawyers should consider whether the duty of communication requires them to disclose the use of an AI tool to a client
• The requirement that fees and expenses be reasonable applies to the use of AI

Lawyers concerned about these types of issues can call an Ethics Hotline mentioned in the article.

Some informal insights are available.

Mark Gifford, Bar Counsel for the Wyoming State Bar, has published an article on generative AI and the ethical obligations of lawyers. Some key insights include:

• Attorneys can use generative AI as a starting point but not rely on it to produce a finished product, since it is not a substitute for a lawyer’s analysis and professional judgment
• Lawyers should avoid inputting confidential client information into a generative AI platform, including client identifying data, and they should review terms of use for the product and determine how inputted information is used
• Clients should not be charged hourly fees for the time saved by using generative AI
• Subordinate lawyers and staff should be trained in the use of generative AI, and clear policies and guidelines must be established for its use
• Before submitting a document generated by AI to a court, a lawyer must ascertain that what is submitted is merit-based, accurate, and complete

The article notes that the Wyoming Judicial Council has not circulated any rule changes involving the use of AI by attorneys in drafting court-filed documents.

Last reviewed April 2025