Every state bar AI ethics opinion, in one honest map
As of June 2026, 15 U.S. jurisdictions plus the ABA have issued formal ethics opinions on lawyers using generative AI, and 38 jurisdictions have issued something official once guidance, reports, and court rules are counted. This tracker lists all 55 instruments in plain English, labels each by what it actually is, links every primary source, and logs every change.
17
Formal ethics opinions (incl. ABA 512)
38
Jurisdictions with official instruments
10
Court rules and policies
2026-07-22
Dataset last verified
Recently added or changed
| Date | Jurisdiction | Instrument | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 2, 2026 | California Legislature | SB 574: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers (2025-2026) | Proposed rule |
| June 17, 2026 | Rhode Island Supreme Court | In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines | Court rule or policy |
| June 15, 2026 | Supreme Court of Florida | Amendment to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (accuracy of cited authorities) | Court rule or policy |
| June 1, 2026 | North Dakota Court System | Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Official guidance |
| June 1, 2026 | New York Unified Court System | 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology | Court rule or policy |
| May 29, 2026 | Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (federal) | Rules Suggestion 26-CV-21: proposed FRCP 11(a) certification that cited legal authorities exist | Proposed rule |
Formal ethics opinions (17)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama State Bar (Office of General Counsel) | Formal Opinion 2026-01: Artificial Intelligence Use — Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules The newest of the 141 formal opinions in the bar's Office of General Counsel index (the prior newest was 2023-01), applying to every Alabama lawyer regardless of firm size. The opinion document itself is undated (year precision only; the PDF asset path suggests mid-2026 publication but is not citable). Full PDF: https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf . Its cautionary examples cite Mata v. Avianca, Ibach v. Stewart (Ala. April 24, 2026), and Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Ala. 2025). Bot-blocked to automated fetch; read in a live browser session on July 19, 2026. | 2026 | competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fees, communication, verification | 2026-07-19 |
| 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 (10)
Binding rules and judicial-branch policies. These govern practice in those courts regardless of what your bar says.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas Supreme Court | Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted, 2025 Ark. 220) Adopted December 11, 2025, by In re Adoption of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25 Artificial Intelligence, 2025 Ark. 220 (per curiam), effective immediately; confirmed present in the court's current Administrative Orders compilation (rule current to January 29, 2026, HISTORY line 'Adopted December 11, 2025'). Scope note: the binding Section 2 prohibition is court-staff and court-system facing; Section 1 imposes awareness duties on everyone entering client or court data, attorneys included, with express cross-references to the ARPC. Companion ARPC amendment adopted the same day (2025 Ark. 221). Proposal history: published for comment June 5, 2025 (2025 Ark. 117); comment period closed August 1, 2025. | December 11, 2025 | confidentiality, data protection, accountability | 2026-07-19 |
| Arkansas Supreme Court | Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph 22 and Rule 5.3 (adopted, 2025 Ark. 221) Adopted December 11, 2025, by In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 221 (per curiam), effective immediately, with the amendments shown in line-in, line-out form. Compilation lag caution: the court's posted [Current] ARPC compilation still showed 'Rule Current To 06/12/2025' when checked on July 19, 2026; cite the adoption per curiam for current status, not the lagging compilation. Proposal history: published for comment June 5, 2025 (2025 Ark. 115), on the unanimous recommendation of the Arkansas Bar Association's AI Task Force; comment period closed August 1, 2025. | December 11, 2025 | accountability, supervision, competence | 2026-07-19 |
| Colorado Supreme Court | Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Preamble and Scope paragraph [20A]; Rule 1.1 comments [8] and [9]) The first AI-specific amendment to a state's Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by a state supreme court that is recorded in this tracker. Colorado also launched a Legal Technology Advisory Committee on September 15, 2025, with initial recommendations due October 1, 2026. | January 8, 2026 | competence, accountability, independent judgment | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| Montana Fourth Judicial District Court | Fourth Judicial District (Missoula & Mineral Counties) Rules of Practice, Rule 3.G: Pleading Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence LOCAL rule: Missoula and Mineral Counties only, adopted district-wide rather than as an individual judge's standing order. Date shown is the Rules of Practice revision date. Montana has no statewide AI instrument; with Thirteenth Judicial District Rule 35, one of the first two district-level local rules recorded in this tracker. | October 31, 2025 | disclosure, verification, candor, accountability | 2026-07-01 |
| Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court | Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County) Local Rules of Practice, Rule 35: Artificial Intelligence LOCAL rule: Yellowstone County only. Adopted and effective the same day. Montana has no statewide AI instrument; with Fourth Judicial District Rule 3.G, one of the first two district-level local rules recorded in this tracker. | January 1, 2026 | disclosure, verification, accountability | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | Rule 1.17, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (2026 OK CR 7) Scope is filings before the OCCA, Oklahoma's court of last resort for criminal cases, so the rule reaches statewide criminal appellate practice but not civil litigation or the trial courts; the first criminal-appellate AI rule recorded in this tracker. Rule text also at https://www.okcca.net/rules/rule-1.17/ . Presiding Judge Lumpkin specially concurred, writing that a signature on a filing already certifies its accuracy. | February 18, 2026 | verification, accountability, candor | 2026-07-01 |
| Rhode Island Supreme Court | In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines Dual character: the comment [6] amendment is a binding conduct-rule change (the Colorado comment-amendment route), while the attached interim guidelines are advisory and expressly without the force of law. Signed by Suttell, C.J., with Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. The court's Ethics Advisory Panel, to which the guidelines direct lawyers, has issued no AI opinion. | June 17, 2026 | competence, verification, fees, confidentiality, communication, reporting misconduct | 2026-07-01 |
| Supreme Court of Florida | Amendment to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (accuracy of cited authorities) Effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m. Adopted without prior publication; comments accepted until August 11, 2026. Primary opinion at flcourts-media.flcourts.gov (Case No. SC2026-0673). | June 15, 2026 | candor, verification, accountability | 2026-06-13 |
Official guidance (21)
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 |
| Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) | The Illinois Attorney's Guide to Implementing AI Guidance, not a formal ethics opinion; complements the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy already tracked. Released October 24, 2025 (ISBA announcement at isba.org/barnews/2025/10). | October 24, 2025 | competence, confidentiality, supervision, accountability, communication | 2026-06-13 |
| Louisiana Supreme Court | Letter re 'The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence' from the Louisiana Supreme Court to the Louisiana State Bar Association LSBA announcement: https://www.lsba.org/NewsArticle.aspx?Article=12b5093a-13ba-407c-b7d9-30057c968c5a . Guidance by letter, not a numbered opinion; the LSBA itself had issued no AI ethics opinion as of July 1, 2026 (its 2019 opinion 19-RPCC-021 on technology due diligence predates generative AI). The Court's Technology Commission later issued judge-facing generative-AI guidelines (October 3, 2025), excluded from this dataset as bench-facing. | January 22, 2024 | competence, diligence, communication, confidentiality, candor, accountability, supervision | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee | Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and The Potential for Discrimination and Bias Third in the three-article series; guidance, not a formal opinion. An NHBA Special Committee on AI, chaired by President-Elect Bob Lucic, was developing further guidance as of July 1, 2026. | October 30, 2024 | competence, bias monitoring, independent judgment | 2026-07-01 |
| New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee | Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence Second in the three-article series; guidance, not a formal opinion. | September 10, 2024 | communication, consent, confidentiality, verification, supervision, fees | 2026-07-01 |
| New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee | Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice A bar-committee practical-ethics article reviewed by the Board of Governors, not a formal ethics opinion: New Hampshire had no formal NHBA AI opinion and no judiciary AI order as of July 1, 2026. First in a three-article series; see the companion drafting and bias entries. | May 15, 2024 | competence, verification, candor, confidentiality, supervision, independent judgment | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| North Dakota Court System | Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Practitioner-facing guidance about filings (attorneys, self-represented litigants, and the public), not a bench or staff use policy. The State Bar Association of North Dakota's ethics-opinions index, inspected July 1, 2026, lists no AI opinion. | June 1, 2026 | accountability, verification, candor, confidentiality, supervision | 2026-07-01 |
| Ohio Board of Professional Conduct | Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers — Ohio Ethics Guide PDF footer states Published April 2026 (month precision). Carry the framing verbatim: nonbinding staff guidance that expressly does not reflect the views of the Board or the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Board has issued no advisory opinion on AI. | April 2026 | competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, independent judgment, candor, supervision | 2026-07-01 |
| 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. The Board of Trustees approved the updated revisions on May 14, 2026, as stated on the State Bar's Ethics & Technology Resources page (day precision verified 2026-07-01). | November 16, 2023 | competence, confidentiality, verification, fees, supervision, communication | 2026-07-01 |
| State Bar of Georgia (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology) | Generative AI Toolkit Dated February 20, 2026, the Last Updated date stated on the primary PDF. Reported first launched November 2025, but that report is secondary and unconfirmed, so the date is anchored to the primary's own Last Updated line instead. | February 20, 2026 | competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, vendor vetting, conflicts, candor, verification, supervision | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| State Bar of Wisconsin (ethics counsel) | Ethical Dilemma: Ethical Considerations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Bar-staff educational guidance in the bar's official magazine column (the Massachusetts BBO and NHBA precedent); date is the October 4, 2024 issue date. PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/WisconsinLawyerPDFs/97/10/29_32.pdf . No State Bar of Wisconsin formal ethics opinion (EF-series) on AI exists. | October 4, 2024 | competence, communication, fees, confidentiality, consent, verification, candor, supervision | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1 (signature attestation and generative AI) An advisory committee note interpreting the existing FRAP 32(d) signature requirement, not a new binding rule. The court's rules page lists the December 2025 revisions as incorporated in the rules handbook effective June 1, 2026 (inferred from the rules page; handbook PDF not separately fetched). Quoted and applied in the published sanctions order Lnu v. Blanche, No. 24-4790 (9th Cir. June 3, 2026), which suspended two attorneys for six months and fined each $2,500 over AI-hallucinated citations and lack of candor. | December 1, 2025 | verification, accountability, candor | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 |
| Wyoming State Bar (Bar Counsel) | Transitioning to Generative AI? Don't Leave the Rules of Professional Conduct Behind Bar-staff guidance in the bar's official magazine, February 2024 (month precision). The article documents that the Wyoming Judicial Council had circulated no generative-AI rule changes. Wyoming publishes no formal ethics opinions; the Bar Counsel ethics hotline is informal and non-binding. | February 2024 | competence, diligence, verification, confidentiality, fees, supervision, candor | 2026-07-01 |
Bar and court reports (4)
Task force and working group reports. Useful context; the weakest authority tier tracked here.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (Hawaii Judiciary) | Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Final Report to the Hawaii Supreme Court (SCMF-24-0000305) Report date December 15, 2025; e-filed December 16, 2025. A judiciary report, not a bar opinion: the Disciplinary Board's formal-opinions index, inspected July 1, 2026, lists no AI opinion. | December 15, 2025 | competence, tool vetting, education | 2026-07-01 |
| 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 (3)
Not law. Listed because adoption would change the landscape materially.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Date | Key duties | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California Legislature | SB 574: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers (2025-2026) Date is the July 2, 2026 Assembly amendment (the version read); introduced February 20, 2025. Verified against the bill text and status on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on July 19, 2026: house location Assembly, active bill in floor process. Pending legislation, not law; distinct from the State Bar's COPRAC practical guidance and proposed rule amendments, which proceed on a separate track. | July 2, 2026 | confidentiality, data protection, accountability, candor | 2026-07-19 |
| Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (federal) | Rules Suggestion 26-CV-21: proposed FRCP 11(a) certification that cited legal authorities exist Earliest stage of federal rulemaking: a docketed suggestion, not a proposed amendment published for public comment. Before any amendment could take effect it would still need advisory committee action, publication for comment, and approval by the Standing Committee, the Judicial Conference, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Suggestion PDF: uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/26-cv-21_suggestion_from_patricia_barksdale_rule_11.pdf. | May 29, 2026 | candor, verification, accountability | 2026-07-01 |
| 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, 15 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, 38 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 2026-07-22 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.