Every state bar AI ethics opinion, in one honest map
As of June 2026, 14 U.S. jurisdictions plus the ABA have issued formal ethics opinions on lawyers using generative AI, and 24 jurisdictions have issued something official once guidance, reports, and court rules are counted. This tracker lists all 32 instruments in plain English, labels each by what it actually is, links every primary source, and logs every change.
Recently added or changed
| Date | Jurisdiction | Instrument | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 1, 2026 | New York Unified Court System | 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology | Court rule or policy |
| March 13, 2026 | State Bar of California (COPRAC) | Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence | Proposed rule |
| December 22, 2025 | New York City Bar Association | Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients | Formal ethics opinion |
| November 24, 2025 | Virginia State Bar (approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia) | Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | Formal ethics opinion |
| July 1, 2025 | The Mississippi Bar (Law Practice Management and Technology Committee) | AI Tools for Lawyers: A Practical Guide | Official guidance |
| April 23, 2025 | Alaska Bar Association | Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law | Formal ethics opinion |
Formal ethics opinions (16)
Numbered, citable opinions issued through each bar’s established opinion process. Advisory in most states, but the closest thing to controlling ethics authority on AI.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Bar Association | Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Frequently missing from other trackers. | April 23, 2025 | competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, verification | 2026-06-10 |
| American Bar Association (national) | ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools No superseding ABA opinion on generative AI exists as of June 2026. Subsequent ABA opinions 514 through 518 cover non-AI topics. | July 29, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| District of Columbia Bar | Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters The D.C. Bar publishes the month only (April 2024); no day is given. | April 2024 | competence, confidentiality, candor, fees, supervision, client file | 2026-06-10 |
| Kentucky Bar Association | Ethics Opinion KBA E-457: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law | March 15, 2024 | competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, candor, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
| New York City Bar Association | Formal Opinion 2024-5: Ethical Obligations Relating to Generative Artificial Intelligence Often misdated to April 2024; the opinion is dated August 7, 2024. | August 7, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, verification, supervision, fees, candor, communication | 2026-06-10 |
| New York City Bar Association | Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients | December 22, 2025 | consent, confidentiality, verification, competence | 2026-06-10 |
| North Carolina State Bar | 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice | November 1, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, privilege, supervision, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| Oregon State Bar | Formal Opinion 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools | February 2025 | competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, consent, supervision, verification | 2026-06-10 |
| Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association | Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence The opinion text is undated; May 2024 per contemporaneous coverage. The PBA original sits behind a member login; the public copy is hosted by LawSites. | May 2024 | competence, verification, confidentiality, consent, conflicts, candor, supervision, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| State Bar of New Mexico | Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law | September 24, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, verification, conflicts, supervision, communication, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| State Bar of Texas (Professional Ethics Committee) | Opinion 705 | February 2025 | competence, confidentiality, consent, verification, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| The Florida Bar | Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 The opinion's face date is January 19, 2024. A January 24 date sometimes cited is the web page's modification date, not the opinion date. | January 19, 2024 | confidentiality, consent, supervision, verification, fees, advertising | 2026-06-10 |
| The Mississippi Bar | Ethics Opinion No. 267 | November 14, 2024 | confidentiality, verification, fees, consent | 2026-06-10 |
| Virginia State Bar (approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia) | Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence VSB Council approved June 12, 2025; effective on Supreme Court of Virginia approval November 24, 2025. | November 24, 2025 | fees, communication | 2026-06-10 |
| Washington State Bar Association | WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice Published 2025 (November per secondary reports; day unverified on the opinion itself). | 2025 | competence, verification, confidentiality, fees, supervision, candor | 2026-06-10 |
| West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board | Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01: Artificial Intelligence Strictest client-consent position nationally: informed consent confirmed in writing. | June 2024 | competence, diligence, written consent, confidentiality, supervision, bias monitoring | 2026-06-10 |
Court rules and policies (2)
Binding rules and judicial-branch policies. These govern practice in those courts regardless of what your bar says.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois Supreme Court | Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence Date shown is the announcement date; the policy was reported effective January 1, 2025. Illinois has no state bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI as of June 2026. | December 18, 2024 | accountability, verification, confidentiality | 2026-06-10 |
| New York Unified Court System | 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology Date shown is the effective date. Papers offered as evidence are excluded. Preceded by the UCS interim AI policy for judges and court staff (October 2025). | June 1, 2026 | verification, candor, accountability | 2026-06-10 |
Official guidance (10)
Official but informal: practical guidance, FAQs, model policies, and bar counsel publications. Persuasive, not citable as opinions.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona Supreme Court Steering Committee on AI and the Courts | Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges | November 14, 2024 | competence, diligence, confidentiality, communication, fees, candor, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
| Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (Office of Bar Counsel) | The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (bar counsel practice article) No formal Massachusetts ethics opinion on generative AI exists as of June 2026. | 2024 | competence, confidentiality, supervision, oversight | 2026-06-10 |
| Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel | Informal Opinion 2024-11 | April 25, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, verification, professional independence, supervision, fees | 2026-06-10 |
| New Jersey Supreme Court | Preliminary Guidelines on New Jersey Lawyers' Use of Artificial Intelligence | January 24, 2024 | verification, candor, confidentiality, communication, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
| State Bar of California (COPRAC) | Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law The PDF now hosted at calbar.ca.gov is a 2026 revision that replaces the 2023 version and adds agentic-AI duties, issued at the California Supreme Court's request. | November 16, 2023 | competence, confidentiality, verification, fees, supervision, communication | 2026-06-10 |
| State Bar of Michigan | Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions Fee questions added February 11, 2025. Michigan also has judicial ethics opinion JI-155 (2023) on judges' AI competence. No lawyer-facing formal opinion exists. | November 18, 2024 | competence, verification, confidentiality, consent, communication, fees, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
| The Mississippi Bar (Law Practice Management and Technology Committee) | AI Tools for Lawyers: A Practical Guide A separate item from Ethics Opinion 267, issued roughly eight months later. | July 1, 2025 | competence | 2026-06-10 |
| Utah State Bar | Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations (bar article) No formal or advisory Utah ethics opinion on AI exists as of June 2026. A 'Utah Advisory Opinion 24-03' circulating on one marketing site appears to be fabricated and should never be cited. | May 2023 | consent, confidentiality, fees, verification | 2026-06-10 |
| Virginia Bar Association (voluntary bar) | VBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence: Model AI Policy Often conflated with the Virginia State Bar's guidance; they are different bodies. | 2024 | tool vetting, training, confidentiality, verification, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
| Virginia State Bar | Generative AI guidance (VSB Ethics and Conduct page) Distinct from the voluntary Virginia Bar Association's Model AI Policy (2024) and from LEO 1901. | 2024 | competence, confidentiality, verification, supervision, fees | 2026-06-10 |
Bar and court reports (3)
Task force and working group reports. Useful context; the weakest authority tier tracked here.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota State Bar Association | MSBA AI Working Group Final Report: Implications of Large Language Models on UPL and Access to Justice | June 2024 | verification, confidentiality, supervision, UPL | 2026-06-10 |
| New York State Bar Association | Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence | April 6, 2024 | competence, confidentiality, supervision, communication, candor | 2026-06-10 |
| Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts | VJCAIC First Annual Report (lawyer guidance in Appendix G) A judiciary instrument, not bar guidance. Vermont has no bar ethics opinion on AI. | March 2025 | competence, confidentiality, fees, verification, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
Proposed rules to watch (1)
Not law. Listed because adoption would change the landscape materially.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Bar of California (COPRAC) | Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence Follows an August 22, 2025 California Supreme Court directive to consider converting the 2023 guidance into binding rules. Watch for Board of Trustees and Supreme Court action. | March 13, 2026 | competence, communication, confidentiality, candor, supervision | 2026-06-10 |
Frequently asked questions
How many states have AI ethics opinions for lawyers?
Strictly counted, 14 U.S. jurisdictions have issued formal ethics opinions on generative AI as of June 2026, plus ABA Formal Opinion 512 nationally. Counting official guidance, bar reports, and court rules as well, 24 jurisdictions have issued something official. Claims of "25+ states" are only true under that broader definition, which is why this tracker labels every entry by type.
What is the difference between a formal ethics opinion and guidance?
A formal ethics opinion is issued through a bar’s established opinion process (a numbered, citable opinion, usually advisory). Guidance, task force reports, and FAQs are official but more informal, and court rules or policies bind practice in those courts. The duties described are often similar; the weight and citability differ.
Do courts require lawyers to disclose AI use?
There is no nationwide disclosure rule. New York’s 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026) expressly declines to require system-wide disclosure, and the Illinois Supreme Court’s AI policy also declines to require it. But more than a hundred individual judges maintain standing orders requiring disclosure or certification, so you must check the specific judge and court. See our court AI disclosure orders guide.
How often is this tracker updated?
Every entry shows a last-verified date, every change is recorded on the public changelog, and new opinions are added the week they are issued. The dataset was last verified on 2026-06-11 and is downloadable as JSON or CSV under CC BY 4.0.
Get update alerts
One email when a state issues a new opinion, rule, or guidance. No newsletter padding. Unsubscribe anytime.
Start with the guides
For licensed attorneys and firm operators. This site is legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by using it. Rules change; verify against the primary sources linked on every page and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before acting.