{
  "name": "U.S. Legal AI Ethics Instruments Dataset",
  "source": "https://legalaicompliance.help",
  "license": "CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)",
  "attribution": "Legal AI Compliance Tracker (https://legalaicompliance.help), maintained by MHSB Solutions",
  "lastVerified": "2026-07-21",
  "count": 55,
  "note": "type distinguishes formal_opinion, guidance, report, court_rule, and proposed. date_precision tells you how much of the date is verified; never cite a more specific date than the precision supports.",
  "instruments": [
    {
      "id": "aba-formal-opinion-512",
      "jurisdiction": "American Bar Association (national)",
      "state": "US",
      "name": "ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-07-29",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf",
      "summary": "The ABA's first and still-current ethics opinion on generative AI. Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the tools they use, protect client confidences before entering them into AI tools, communicate with clients about AI use where material, verify outputs, supervise AI use across the firm, and bill only for actual time spent prompting and reviewing, not for time spent learning the tool.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "communication",
        "candor",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "No superseding ABA opinion on generative AI exists as of June 2026. Subsequent ABA opinions 514 through 518 cover non-AI topics.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "alabama-formal-opinion-2026-01",
      "jurisdiction": "Alabama State Bar (Office of General Counsel)",
      "state": "AL",
      "name": "Formal Opinion 2026-01: Artificial Intelligence Use — Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2026",
      "date_precision": "year",
      "url": "https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/",
      "summary": "The Alabama State Bar's numbered Formal Opinion 2026-01, an eleven-page opinion on generative and agentic AI in law practice. Its premise: artificial intelligence does not create new ethical duties but recontextualizes longstanding obligations of competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, reasonableness of fees, and client communication, with the lawyer fully responsible for all work regardless of AI use, citing ABA Formal Opinion 512. It treats AI ethically as a non-lawyer assistant requiring supervision, addresses vendor selection as a competence issue, prefers closed non-training enterprise systems over consumer tools, treats AI subscription costs as overhead absent client agreement, requires honest answers when clients ask about AI use, and closes with a per-matter checklist: check the court's local rules and standing orders for AI disclosure or certification requirements, document the tool used, the task performed, and the verification steps taken, confirm that no legal judgment, strategic decision-making, or client advice was delegated to the AI, review AI-generated client communications before sending, and supervise non-lawyer staff who use AI.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "candor",
        "fees",
        "communication",
        "verification"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "alaska-2025-1",
      "jurisdiction": "Alaska Bar Association",
      "state": "AK",
      "name": "Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025-04-23",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf",
      "summary": "Adopted by the Alaska Bar Board of Governors on April 23, 2025 after Ethics Committee approval on April 3, 2025. Alaska lawyers may use generative AI consistent with existing duties of competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor, with verification of AI output before use.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "candor",
        "verification"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Frequently missing from other trackers.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "arizona-aisc-best-practices",
      "jurisdiction": "Arizona Supreme Court Steering Committee on AI and the Courts",
      "state": "AZ",
      "name": "Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-11-14",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.azbar.org/media/e4chgf0g/aisc-ethical-best-practices-guidance_for-publication.pdf",
      "summary": "Issued by the court-created AISC steering committee (Administrative Order 2024-33) and published via the State Bar of Arizona, not by a bar ethics committee. Covers seven areas: competence and diligence (check every material proposition and source), confidentiality (no client or nonpublic data into tools without sufficient guarantees, informed consent otherwise), client and supervisor communication (disclose chatbots; no duty to flag every AI use), billing (no charging for time saved; advance written disclosure of AI costs), court disclosure and candor, bias mitigation, and supervision via written, acknowledged firm AI policies.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "diligence",
        "confidentiality",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "candor",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "arkansas-ao-25-proposed",
      "jurisdiction": "Arkansas Supreme Court",
      "state": "AR",
      "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence (adopted, 2025 Ark. 220)",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2025-12-11",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/524043/index.do",
      "summary": "An administrative order the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted by per curiam order on December 11, 2025, effective immediately, after publishing it for comment on June 5, 2025 (2025 Ark. 117) and receiving no substantive comments. Section 1 warns everyone participating in the court system, attorneys included, that generative AI tools may retain input data, distinguishes public from private large language models, and states that entering confidential or sealed client or case information into generative AI may violate Administrative Order 19, Arkansas statutes limiting access to court records, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and applicable rules of procedure. Section 2 prohibits Administrative Office of the Courts staff, clerks of court and their staff, and anyone with access to internal CourtConnect from intentionally exposing the state courts' internal data to generative AI using a public LLM, with research-and-analysis exceptions routed through the Supreme Court's Automation Committee and the CIS Division.",
      "key_duties": [
        "confidentiality",
        "data protection",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "arkansas-rpc-amendments-proposed",
      "jurisdiction": "Arkansas Supreme Court",
      "state": "AR",
      "name": "Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble paragraph 22 and Rule 5.3 (adopted, 2025 Ark. 221)",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2025-12-11",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/524044/index.do",
      "summary": "Companion amendment to Administrative Order No. 25, adopted by per curiam order on December 11, 2025, effective immediately, after publication for comment on June 5, 2025 (2025 Ark. 115). It adds paragraph 22 to the Preamble of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: nothing in the rules prohibits an attorney's use of non-human assistance, including artificial intelligence, but the use of non-human assistance does not excuse or mitigate any violation of the rules, and lawyers are advised to consult Administrative Order No. 25 before using AI. It also changes the heading of Rule 5.3 from Nonlawyer Assistants to Nonlawyer Assistance, with conforming text changes.",
      "key_duties": [
        "accountability",
        "supervision",
        "competence"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "california-practical-guidance",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of California (COPRAC)",
      "state": "CA",
      "name": "Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2023-11-16",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf",
      "summary": "The first state guidance in the country, issued November 16, 2023 by the State Bar of California's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct. Chart-format guiding principles: do not input confidential client information into tools lacking adequate security (anonymize inputs; obtain informed consent where risks remain), review and verify all AI outputs before use or filing, bill hourly clients only for time actually spent, and supervise and train lawyers and nonlawyers on AI use.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "fees",
        "supervision",
        "communication"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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).",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "california-proposed-rule-amendments",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of California (COPRAC)",
      "state": "CA",
      "name": "Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "proposed",
      "date": "2026-03-13",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence",
      "summary": "Proposed amendments to California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence, including AI-output verification), 1.4 (communication), 1.6 (confidentiality), 3.3 (candor), and 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision), approved for public comment by COPRAC on March 13, 2026. The 45-day comment period closed May 4, 2026. If adopted, these would be the first binding state disciplinary rules written specifically for AI. Not adopted as of June 10, 2026.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "confidentiality",
        "candor",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "proposed",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "california-sb-574",
      "jurisdiction": "California Legislature",
      "state": "CA",
      "name": "SB 574: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers (2025-2026)",
      "type": "proposed",
      "date": "2026-07-02",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574",
      "summary": "Pending legislation by Senator Umberg that would write attorney generative-AI duties into statute: a new Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 providing that an attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative AI and imposing duties on attorneys who use it, including not entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system; an amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, California's filing-certification and sanctions statute; a new section 180 requiring judicial officers in civil and criminal matters to disclose whether anyone involved in researching or drafting a ruling relied on generative AI; and a new section 1282.1 making arbitrators responsible for all aspects of an award regardless of any generative AI use, with disclosure duties. The bill passed the Senate and, as amended July 2, 2026, is in Assembly floor process after a 15-0 do-pass from the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on July 1, 2026.",
      "key_duties": [
        "confidentiality",
        "data protection",
        "accountability",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "proposed",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-19"
    },
    {
      "id": "colorado-rule-change-2026-02",
      "jurisdiction": "Colorado Supreme Court",
      "state": "CO",
      "name": "Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Preamble and Scope paragraph [20A]; Rule 1.1 comments [8] and [9])",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-01-08",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf",
      "summary": "Adopted en banc by the Colorado Supreme Court on January 8, 2026 and effective immediately, this rule change writes AI into the conduct rules. New Preamble and Scope paragraph [20A] provides that technology, including artificial intelligence, does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities, and that lawyers who use technology directly or indirectly in delivering legal services may be disciplined for resulting violations. Rule 1.1 comment [8] on technological competence is amended, and a new comment [9] catalogs the rules AI use can implicate, Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 through 5.3, 7.1, and 8.4(g), adding that reliance on technology does not diminish the lawyer's independent judgment.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "accountability",
        "independent judgment"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "dc-ethics-opinion-388",
      "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia Bar",
      "state": "DC",
      "name": "Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-04",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388",
      "summary": "Technology does not alter fundamental duties. Competence requires understanding that generative AI predicts text and can hallucinate, so outputs must be reviewed and validated. Lawyers must determine whether a tool exposes inputs to third parties or trains on them before entering client confidences, bill hourly clients only for time actually spent, preserve relevant AI interactions in the client file, and supervise others' AI use.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "candor",
        "fees",
        "supervision",
        "client file"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "The D.C. Bar publishes the month only (April 2024); no day is given.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "florida-24-1",
      "jurisdiction": "The Florida Bar",
      "state": "FL",
      "name": "Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-01-19",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/",
      "summary": "Florida lawyers may use generative AI if they protect client confidentiality (informed consent is recommended before feeding confidential information to third-party AI), supervise and verify AI output the way they would a nonlawyer assistant's work, avoid improper billing (no double-billing and no charging clients to learn the tool), and follow advertising rules, including that AI chatbots must disclose they are not a lawyer.",
      "key_duties": [
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "supervision",
        "verification",
        "fees",
        "advertising"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "florida-rule-2-515-ai",
      "jurisdiction": "Supreme Court of Florida",
      "state": "FL",
      "name": "Amendment to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (accuracy of cited authorities)",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-06-15",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/supreme-court-amends-rules-to-address-ai-use-in-court-filings/",
      "summary": "Adopted by the Florida Supreme Court on its own motion (Case No. SC2026-0673, approved May 28, 2026), this amendment provides that by signing a filing, the signer represents that the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. It is an accuracy-of-authorities certification rather than an AI-disclosure rule, and it expressly authorizes sanctions (reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs, or attorneys' fees) after notice and an opportunity to be heard. A companion administrative order preempts circuit-level AI certification requirements to create one statewide standard.",
      "key_duties": [
        "candor",
        "verification",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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).",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-13"
    },
    {
      "id": "frcp-rule-11-suggestion-26-cv-21",
      "jurisdiction": "Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (federal)",
      "state": "US",
      "name": "Rules Suggestion 26-CV-21: proposed FRCP 11(a) certification that cited legal authorities exist",
      "type": "proposed",
      "date": "2026-05-29",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/suggestions/hon-patricia-barksdale-26-cv-21",
      "summary": "A rules suggestion submitted May 29, 2026 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Barksdale (M.D. Fla.) asking the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to add a fifth certification to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a): that the legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. The suggestion is expressly modeled on the Florida Supreme Court's 2026 amendment to Rule 2.515 and aims to address generative AI use and preempt the growing patchwork of judge-specific standing orders. Docketed with status listed as pending consideration.",
      "key_duties": [
        "candor",
        "verification",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "proposed",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "georgia-genai-toolkit",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of Georgia (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology)",
      "state": "GA",
      "name": "Generative AI Toolkit",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2026-02-20",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.gabar.org/docs/default-source/lpm/member-resources/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=eebe6817_6",
      "summary": "Bar-issued practical guidance prepared by the Special Committee's Technological Competence Subcommittee with the Law Practice Management Program and the Office of the General Counsel. Georgia lawyers may use generative AI within the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, covered rule by rule: Rule 1.1 competence and oversight; Rules 1.4 and 1.5 on fees and informed consent; Rules 1.6, 1.9, and 1.18 on confidentiality and vendor vetting; Rules 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 on conflicts from intake tools; Rules 3.1 and 3.3 on candor and hallucination verification; and Rules 5.1 and 5.3 on supervision, plus a risk checklist. Expressly not intended to promote or establish a formal advisory opinion; a living document.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "vendor vetting",
        "conflicts",
        "candor",
        "verification",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "hawaii-ai-courts-report",
      "jurisdiction": "Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (Hawaii Judiciary)",
      "state": "HI",
      "name": "Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Final Report to the Hawaii Supreme Court (SCMF-24-0000305)",
      "type": "report",
      "date": "2025-12-15",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/121625_SCMF-24-305_CommitteeOnArtificialIntelligenceAndTheCourts_FinalReport.pdf",
      "summary": "Final report of the committee Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald established on April 16, 2024, co-chaired by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens and Judge John M. Tonaki. Its Ethics Subcommittee concludes that existing rules, including the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct, are broad enough to cover generative AI, so the report proposes no rule changes, an explicit wait-and-see position. It recommends education across CLE, law school AI ethics, and judicial education, a standing judiciary committee to vet AI tools, and continuation of the committee, and it surveys the judiciary's own AI use, including the KolokoloChat chatbot and the internal AI guardrails collected in Appendix 3.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "tool vetting",
        "education"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "il-supreme-court-ai-policy",
      "jurisdiction": "Illinois Supreme Court",
      "state": "IL",
      "name": "Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2024-12-18",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/",
      "summary": "A judicial-branch policy authorizing AI use by attorneys, judges, litigants, and court staff provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. The court found existing rules sufficient, declined to require AI disclosure in pleadings, and made users fully accountable for their final work product, including thorough review of AI-generated content before filing and protection of confidential information.",
      "key_duties": [
        "accountability",
        "verification",
        "confidentiality"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "illinois-ardc-implementing-ai-guide",
      "jurisdiction": "Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC)",
      "state": "IL",
      "name": "The Illinois Attorney's Guide to Implementing AI",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2025-10-24",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/",
      "summary": "An official ARDC guide, developed in alignment with the Illinois Supreme Court's Policy on Artificial Intelligence, that helps lawyers apply their existing ethical duties when using generative AI. It sets out a three-step framework: classify the sensitivity of the information being processed, identify the type of AI tool (third-party versus internally hosted), and evaluate safeguards such as model-training settings, data retention, isolation, and vendor terms. It includes a Practice Resource Kit with sample policies, checklists, and client-communication templates, aimed especially at solo and small-firm practitioners.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "accountability",
        "communication"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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).",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-13"
    },
    {
      "id": "kentucky-e-457",
      "jurisdiction": "Kentucky Bar Association",
      "state": "KY",
      "name": "Ethics Opinion KBA E-457: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-03-15",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA%20E-457.pdf",
      "summary": "A seven-question opinion adopted by the KBA Board of Governors. Lawyers must keep abreast of AI (declining to use available tools may itself implicate competence), need not disclose routine AI research unless work is outsourced, the client is charged, or court rules require it, and must reduce fees when AI shrinks time actually spent. AI expenses are chargeable only with advance written client agreement. Lawyers must safeguard confidences, verify court submissions, and adopt firm AI policies and training.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "candor",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "louisiana-supreme-court-ai-letter",
      "jurisdiction": "Louisiana Supreme Court",
      "state": "LA",
      "name": "Letter re 'The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence' from the Louisiana Supreme Court to the Louisiana State Bar Association",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-01-22",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf",
      "summary": "A letter on Louisiana Supreme Court letterhead, written by General Counsel David Becker expressly at the Justices' direction, copied to all Justices, and sent with a request that the LSBA share it with members. It concludes that Louisiana's existing bench and bar rules are 'robust and broad enough to cover the landscape of issues presented by AI in its current forms,' so no amendments are needed. Attorneys remain responsible for their work product and pleadings, technological competence, confidentiality, and avoiding misrepresentations, with citations to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3, and 5.3 and to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 371 and 863. The Court commits to monitoring AI through its Technology Commission and Rules Committee.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "diligence",
        "communication",
        "confidentiality",
        "candor",
        "accountability",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "massachusetts-bbo-article",
      "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (Office of Bar Counsel)",
      "state": "MA",
      "name": "The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (bar counsel practice article)",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024",
      "date_precision": "year",
      "url": "https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf",
      "summary": "Massachusetts regulates through education rather than opinion. This bar counsel white paper applies Massachusetts Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3 to AI: maintain oversight and control of tools, ensure confidentiality protections before use, and supervise AI use firm-wide. Massachusetts courts have sanctioned AI hallucinations (Smith v. Farwell, February 2024).",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "oversight"
      ],
      "status": "informal",
      "notes": "No formal Massachusetts ethics opinion on generative AI exists as of June 2026.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "michigan-ai-faqs",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of Michigan",
      "state": "MI",
      "name": "Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-11-18",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs",
      "summary": "Explicitly neither legal advice nor an ethics opinion, the FAQs apply Michigan Rules 1.1 through 8.4 to AI. Lawyers are responsible for all AI-generated content and must verify citations, must obtain client consent under MRPC 1.6(c)(1) before inputting protected information, and have no general duty to tell clients or courts about AI use absent rule triggers. Only actual time spent may be billed; AI subscriptions are normally overhead; matter-specific per-use AI costs are chargeable only by advance agreement.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "verification",
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "minnesota-msba-report",
      "jurisdiction": "Minnesota State Bar Association",
      "state": "MN",
      "name": "MSBA AI Working Group Final Report: Implications of Large Language Models on UPL and Access to Justice",
      "type": "report",
      "date": "2024-06",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.mnbar.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/msba-ai-working-group-final-report-and-recommendations.pdf",
      "summary": "Adopted by the MSBA Assembly in summer 2024, this report centers on unauthorized-practice and access-to-justice questions rather than the conduct rules. It recommends an AI regulatory sandbox so nonprofits can deploy LLMs to close the justice gap without UPL exposure, plus a standing MSBA AI committee. It notes existing rules already require accurate outputs, confidentiality-preserving tools, and supervised delegation.",
      "key_duties": [
        "verification",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "UPL"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "mississippi-267",
      "jurisdiction": "The Mississippi Bar",
      "state": "MS",
      "name": "Ethics Opinion No. 267",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-11-14",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/",
      "summary": "Mississippi lawyers may ethically use generative AI with safeguards: an affirmative duty to protect confidentiality under Rule 1.6, a duty to verify the accuracy of AI work (expressly adopting ABA Formal Opinion 512's trust-but-verify analysis), reasonable billing (efficiency gains go to the client; learning time is overhead), and informed client consent in certain situations under Rule 1.4.",
      "key_duties": [
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "fees",
        "consent"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "mississippi-practical-guide",
      "jurisdiction": "The Mississippi Bar (Law Practice Management and Technology Committee)",
      "state": "MS",
      "name": "AI Tools for Lawyers: A Practical Guide",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2025-07-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.msbar.org/media/jgagwizj/ai-practical-guide-7125.pdf",
      "summary": "A practitioner-oriented guide surveying AI tools by category (case management, e-discovery, research, contract analysis, and more), with a short ethics section that defers to Ethics Opinion No. 267. A committee publication, not an ethics opinion, and explicitly not an endorsement of any tool.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "A separate item from Ethics Opinion 267, issued roughly eight months later.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "missouri-2024-11",
      "jurisdiction": "Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel",
      "state": "MO",
      "name": "Informal Opinion 2024-11",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-04-25",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/",
      "summary": "An official informal advisory opinion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c), responding to a lawyer designing a firm AI-use policy. Get training before adopting tools, assess platform terms and security before inputting client information, verify AI-assisted content like nonlawyer work, preserve independent professional judgment, and consider fee reasonableness. Firms should build an ethical framework and train both lawyers and nonlawyers.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "professional independence",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "montana-13th-district-rule-35",
      "jurisdiction": "Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court",
      "state": "MT",
      "name": "Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County) Local Rules of Practice, Rule 35: Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-01-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf",
      "summary": "A local rule of Montana's Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County), adopted by the full ten-judge court over Chief Judge Thomas Pardy's signature and effective January 1, 2026. Any attorney or self-represented party who used generative artificial intelligence in preparing a filed document must identify the type of AI used and certify that every citation to the law or to the record in the document has been verified.",
      "key_duties": [
        "disclosure",
        "verification",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "montana-4th-district-rule-3g",
      "jurisdiction": "Montana Fourth Judicial District Court",
      "state": "MT",
      "name": "Fourth Judicial District (Missoula & Mineral Counties) Rules of Practice, Rule 3.G: Pleading Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2025-10-31",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf",
      "summary": "A district-wide local rule of Montana's Fourth Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties), carried in the October 31, 2025 revision of the district's Rules of Practice. Any party using generative AI in a filing must disclose the use, identify the specific tool, and explain how it was used, and must certify that the accuracy of all AI-drafted or AI-assisted portions has been checked. A filing submitted without the certification presumptively certifies that no generative AI was used. Responsibility is anchored in Rule 11 and the rules of professional conduct, with sanctions available up to dismissal without prejudice.",
      "key_duties": [
        "disclosure",
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "new-hampshire-ethics-ai-bias",
      "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee",
      "state": "NH",
      "name": "Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and The Potential for Discrimination and Bias",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-10-30",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/understanding-generative-artificial-intelligence-and-the-potential-for-discrimination-and-bias/",
      "summary": "The third NHBA Ethics Committee Ethics Corner article on generative AI, reviewed by the Board of Governors on October 24, 2024 and published October 30, 2024. Rule 1.1 competence includes understanding algorithmic bias and the potential for discrimination in generative AI output. Inadvertent AI-introduced bias is not by itself a Rule 8.4(g) violation, which requires purpose or animus, but Rule 2.1 requires lawyers to critically evaluate AI output rather than accept it. The article commends ABA Formal Opinion 512.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "bias monitoring",
        "independent judgment"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "new-hampshire-ethics-ai-drafting",
      "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee",
      "state": "NH",
      "name": "Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-09-10",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/",
      "summary": "The second NHBA Ethics Committee Ethics Corner article on generative AI, reviewed by the Board of Governors on June 7, 2024 and published September 10, 2024. Drafting documents with outside generative AI is permissible only with caveats: Rule 1.4 requires consulting the client and Rule 1.6 requires informed consent before client information is disclosed to an outside AI tool, and the committee counsels avoiding outside generative AI for pleadings. Everything drafted must be verified under Rules 1.1 and 3.3, supervision under Rules 5.1 through 5.3 extends to nonhuman assistance, generic drafting uses remain permissible, and the article flags a possible future Rule 1.5 duty to use cost-reducing technology.",
      "key_duties": [
        "communication",
        "consent",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Second in the three-article series; guidance, not a formal opinion.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "new-hampshire-ethics-ai-practice",
      "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee",
      "state": "NH",
      "name": "Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-05-15",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/",
      "summary": "The first of the NHBA Ethics Committee's three Ethics Corner articles on generative AI, submitted to the Board of Governors on February 8, 2024 and published May 15, 2024. Lawyers have no duty to adopt AI, but Rule 1.1 technological competence governs those who do. Outputs must be vetted before use, with Mata v. Avianca as the warning example; unvetted output risks Rules 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, and 8.4(c). Rule 1.6 controls how client data is handled by AI tools, Rules 5.1 and 5.3 extend supervision to AI use across a firm, Rule 2.1 preserves independent professional judgment, and firms should adopt safeguards and policies.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "independent judgment"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "new-mexico-2024-004",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of New Mexico",
      "state": "NM",
      "name": "Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-09-24",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf",
      "summary": "Lawyers may use generative AI, but must understand each tool's data handling, never input confidential or identity-revealing information into tools lacking protections, anonymize client details, and independently verify all research, citations, and analysis through traditional databases before filing, not by asking the same AI. It also flags former-client conflicts from self-learning tools, requires firm AI policies and training, and lists triggers for discussing AI use with clients.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "conflicts",
        "supervision",
        "communication",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "ninth-circuit-rule-32-1-note",
      "jurisdiction": "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit",
      "state": "US",
      "name": "Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1 (signature attestation and generative AI)",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2025-12-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/ALL+CR+Revisions+FINAL+Sept+2025.pdf",
      "summary": "Official commentary adopted with the Ninth Circuit's December 1, 2025 circuit-rule revisions. The note states that the rules do not directly regulate the process by which a party or an attorney produces a filing, whether written personally, delegated to a subordinate, or prepared with generative artificial intelligence; regardless of how a filing is prepared, the signature required by FRAP 32(d) is an attestation that the signer has reviewed the filing and is responsible for its contents.",
      "key_duties": [
        "verification",
        "accountability",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "nj-preliminary-guidelines",
      "jurisdiction": "New Jersey Supreme Court",
      "state": "NJ",
      "name": "Preliminary Guidelines on New Jersey Lawyers' Use of Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-01-24",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf",
      "summary": "Interim guidelines issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court stating that AI changes no duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must verify all AI-generated information, maintain candor to tribunals (there is no duty to disclose AI use, but no excuse for false content), and ensure a tool's security before entering non-public client information. There is no blanket duty to tell clients about AI use; disclosure is required if the client asks or cannot make an informed decision without knowing.",
      "key_duties": [
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "confidentiality",
        "communication",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "north-carolina-2024-feo-1",
      "jurisdiction": "North Carolina State Bar",
      "state": "NC",
      "name": "2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-11-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/",
      "summary": "A question-and-answer opinion adopted by the State Bar Council. Lawyers may use AI but retain ultimate responsibility for all work product, must vet confidentiality and privilege implications before feeding client-specific information to third-party AI, and must supervise AI like nonlawyer assistance. On billing, a lawyer cannot charge three hours for a one-hour AI-assisted task, though flat fees or disclosed AI costs with client consent are permissible.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "privilege",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "north-dakota-court-ai-notice",
      "jurisdiction": "North Dakota Court System",
      "state": "ND",
      "name": "Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2026-06-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/Media/Default/public-notice/Public-Notice-Regarding-Use-of-AI.pdf",
      "summary": "A practitioner-facing public notice from the North Dakota Court System addressed to attorneys, self-represented litigants, and the public about court filings. AI is not prohibited in matters before North Dakota courts, but full responsibility for filings, including AI errors and fabricated citations, rests with the attorney or self-represented litigant. Filings must comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, and courts may strike noncompliant documents and impose sanctions under N.D.R.Ct. 11.5. The notice maps AI use onto N.D.R.Prof.Conduct 1.1 (competence), 3.1 and 3.3 (candor, with personal verification of every cited authority), and 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision), cautions against entering personal identifying information, protected health information, or sealed material into AI tools, imposes no disclosure requirement solely for AI use, and states it is subject to ongoing revision.",
      "key_duties": [
        "accountability",
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "ny-22-nycrr-part-161",
      "jurisdiction": "New York Unified Court System",
      "state": "NY",
      "name": "22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-06-01",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/161.shtml",
      "summary": "A binding, system-wide court rule applying to all New York Unified Court System courts in civil and criminal cases, adopted March 25, 2026 and effective June 1, 2026. It is permissive and accountability-based: attorneys and parties may use AI in preparing court papers, and no system-wide disclosure of AI use is required. Individual courts are encouraged, not required, to adopt the Appendix A model rule, under which signing a paper certifies the signer carefully reviewed it and independently confirmed it contains no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material, with sanctions available under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3.",
      "key_duties": [
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "accountability"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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).",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "nyc-bar-2024-5",
      "jurisdiction": "New York City Bar Association",
      "state": "NY",
      "name": "Formal Opinion 2024-5: Ethical Obligations Relating to Generative Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-08-07",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law/",
      "summary": "Modeled on California's 2023 guidance and framed as guardrails, not new rules. Lawyers must protect confidences before inputting client data (informed consent for open systems), verify outputs and citations (citing Mata v. Avianca and United States v. Cohen), supervise firm-wide AI use, and bill only actual time. Routine embedded AI such as autocomplete or research-platform features does not require disclosure.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "supervision",
        "fees",
        "candor",
        "communication"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Often misdated to April 2024; the opinion is dated August 7, 2024.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "nyc-bar-2025-6",
      "jurisdiction": "New York City Bar Association",
      "state": "NY",
      "name": "Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025-12-22",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6-ethical-issues-affecting-use-of-ai-to-record-transcribe-and-summarize-conversations-with-clients/",
      "summary": "Requires informed client consent before using AI to record or transcribe client conversations, vendor vetting under Rule 1.6, accuracy checks of transcripts and summaries, and Rule 1.1 understanding of the tool. One of the first opinions on AI meeting assistants specifically.",
      "key_duties": [
        "consent",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "competence"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "nysba-task-force-report",
      "jurisdiction": "New York State Bar Association",
      "state": "NY",
      "name": "Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "report",
      "date": "2024-04-06",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf",
      "summary": "An extensive report adopted by the NYSBA House of Delegates examining the legal, social, and ethical impact of AI, with guidelines keyed to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. It recommends prioritizing education over new legislation, a standing committee to keep guidelines current, and disclosure to clients of AI use.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "communication",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "ohio-bpc-ai-ethics-guide",
      "jurisdiction": "Ohio Board of Professional Conduct",
      "state": "OH",
      "name": "Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers — Ohio Ethics Guide",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2026-04",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.bpc.ohio.gov/_files/ugd/c6a571_bae3fbcec80a4efeb99df928989e6811.pdf",
      "summary": "Nonbinding staff guidance from the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct that expressly does not reflect the views of the Board or the Supreme Court of Ohio. It applies Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, plus the Code of Judicial Conduct, to generative AI: professional judgment is not delegable to a tool; all output must be verified before use, citing State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965, where unverified AI work brought a $2,000 sanction and a disciplinary referral; lawyers bill only actual time, so AI efficiency savings inure to the client; client-identifying data stays out of free and public AI tools; and judges never use AI to decide a case or to produce the first draft of a decision.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "independent judgment",
        "candor",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "oklahoma-occa-rule-1-17",
      "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals",
      "state": "OK",
      "name": "Rule 1.17, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (2026 OK CR 7)",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-02-18",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/",
      "summary": "Adopted by order published as 2026 OK CR 7 and effective on the order date, February 18, 2026. When generative artificial intelligence is used in drafting any filing before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure that every AI-produced or AI-modified portion 'has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document.' Sanctions for noncompliance include waiver of the affected issues, striking of the document, and contempt.",
      "key_duties": [
        "verification",
        "accountability",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "oregon-2025-205",
      "jurisdiction": "Oregon State Bar",
      "state": "OR",
      "name": "Formal Opinion 2025-205: Artificial Intelligence Tools",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025-02",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf",
      "summary": "Approved by the Board of Governors in February 2025. Oregon lawyers may use AI with qualifications: ongoing technology competence, client communication and possible disclosure depending on case-specific factors, no charging to learn AI absent client request and clear agreement, a confidentiality analysis distinguishing open from closed AI models (informed consent before putting client information into an open model), supervision and training duties, and mandatory accuracy review of any output containing case-specific facts, citations, quotations, or conclusions.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "supervision",
        "verification"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "pa-philadelphia-2024-200",
      "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association",
      "state": "PA",
      "name": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-05",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joint-Formal-Opinion-2024-200.pdf",
      "summary": "Lawyers may use AI with appropriate safeguards. The opinion sets out twelve best practices: verify every citation and cited material, keep client data out of tools lacking confidentiality protections, communicate AI use to clients and obtain consent where needed, watch for AI-driven conflicts and bias, and ensure AI-related expenses are reasonable and disclosed. Advisory and non-binding on the Disciplinary Board.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "verification",
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "conflicts",
        "candor",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "rhode-island-rule-1-1-gai-order",
      "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island Supreme Court",
      "state": "RI",
      "name": "In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines",
      "type": "court_rule",
      "date": "2026-06-17",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf",
      "summary": "An order of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, entered June 17, 2026, with dual character. It amends comment [6] to Article V, Rule 1.1 so that competence includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of existing and developing technology, and it adopts the attached advisory Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI. The lawyer guidelines work rule by rule: verify all generative AI output; bill actual time, with generative AI costs treated as overhead absent client-requested specialty tools; vet a tool's confidentiality terms before use; disclose generative AI use when the client asks or when client information is input; and weigh Rule 8.3 reporting where opposing counsel's generative AI misconduct is substantial. Separate judicial-officer guidelines provide that generative AI must never undermine or replace independent judicial decision-making and that judges 'should never rely on GAI-produced content when drafting' orders or decisions.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "verification",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "communication",
        "reporting misconduct"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "texas-705",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of Texas (Professional Ethics Committee)",
      "state": "TX",
      "name": "Opinion 705",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025-02",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/",
      "summary": "Issued at the request of the State Bar of Texas Taskforce on Responsible AI in the Law as a high-level overview. Lawyers must reasonably understand generative AI before using it, protect confidential information and consider client consent before exposing it to AI, independently verify AI output before relying on it (citing Mata v. Avianca), and bill honestly: AI efficiency gains belong to the client, and lawyers may not bill for hours not worked.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "verification",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "utah-bar-article",
      "jurisdiction": "Utah State Bar",
      "state": "UT",
      "name": "Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations (bar article)",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2023-05",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ChatGPT-article.pdf",
      "summary": "Utah's only AI-specific bar publication is an informal article advising lawyers to let clients decide on ChatGPT use after a risk and benefit explanation, share only non-identifying information with AI, bill only actual time spent, and treat AI output like a law clerk's draft requiring citation checks. The Bar's AI Standing Committee publishes educational content but has issued no opinions.",
      "key_duties": [
        "consent",
        "confidentiality",
        "fees",
        "verification"
      ],
      "status": "informal",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "vermont-vjcaic-report",
      "jurisdiction": "Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts",
      "state": "VT",
      "name": "VJCAIC First Annual Report (lawyer guidance in Appendix G)",
      "type": "report",
      "date": "2025-03",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/VJCAIC%20First%20Annual%20Report%20%28final%29.pdf",
      "summary": "Created by the Vermont Supreme Court, the committee concluded no amendments to the conduct rules are warranted because generative AI use falls within existing rules, and issued guidance instead: keep abreast of AI risks and benefits, review tool terms of service and understand how confidential information is used or retained, never bill hourly clients for time saved, confirm output accuracy, and consider an office AI-use policy as part of supervision duties.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "fees",
        "verification",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "A judiciary instrument, not bar guidance. Vermont has no bar ethics opinion on AI.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "virginia-leo-1901",
      "jurisdiction": "Virginia State Bar (approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)",
      "state": "VA",
      "name": "Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025-11-24",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf",
      "summary": "Virginia's only numbered AI ethics opinion, and unusual nationally for carrying Supreme Court of Virginia approval (effective November 24, 2025). Hourly bills must reflect actual time, but Rule 1.5 does not require proportionate fee reductions when AI speeds work; value-based and alternative fee arrangements may capture AI-driven efficiency.",
      "key_duties": [
        "fees",
        "communication"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "VSB Council approved June 12, 2025; effective on Supreme Court of Virginia approval November 24, 2025.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "virginia-vba-model-policy",
      "jurisdiction": "Virginia Bar Association (voluntary bar)",
      "state": "VA",
      "name": "VBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence: Model AI Policy",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024",
      "date_precision": "year",
      "url": "https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.vba.org/resource/resmgr/home/2024/vba_model_ai_policy.pdf",
      "summary": "A template internal-governance policy for law firms covering AI tool selection and approval, training, data confidentiality, output validation and oversight, and use of AI in decision-making. Issued by the voluntary Virginia Bar Association's AI task force (established April 2024), not by the regulatory Virginia State Bar.",
      "key_duties": [
        "tool vetting",
        "training",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Often conflated with the Virginia State Bar's guidance; they are different bodies.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "virginia-vsb-guidance",
      "jurisdiction": "Virginia State Bar",
      "state": "VA",
      "name": "Generative AI guidance (VSB Ethics and Conduct page)",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024",
      "date_precision": "year",
      "url": "https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx",
      "summary": "The mandatory Virginia State Bar chose a short website update rather than an opinion: basic ethical responsibilities are unchanged; lawyers must vet AI providers' data handling before exposing confidences; there is no per se requirement to inform a client of generative AI use absent agreement or elevated risk; all output must be reviewed and citations verified, a duty extending to supervising others' AI use; and lawyers may not bill hourly clients for time saved by AI.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "confidentiality",
        "verification",
        "supervision",
        "fees"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Distinct from the voluntary Virginia Bar Association's Model AI Policy (2024) and from LEO 1901.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "washington-ao-2025-05",
      "jurisdiction": "Washington State Bar Association",
      "state": "WA",
      "name": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2025",
      "date_precision": "year",
      "url": "https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf",
      "summary": "A published advisory opinion of the WSBA Committee on Professional Ethics that deliberately addresses AI broadly: machine-learning, generative, agentic, and future autonomous tools. Lawyers must know tools' capabilities and risks, verify AI work product, protect information shared with tools, bill fairly (no charging for time saved; no overhead pass-through without consent), and supervise firm AI use.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "verification",
        "confidentiality",
        "fees",
        "supervision",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Published 2025 (November per secondary reports; day unverified on the opinion itself).",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "west-virginia-leo-24-01",
      "jurisdiction": "West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board",
      "state": "WV",
      "name": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01: Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "formal_opinion",
      "date": "2024-06",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://wvodc.org/Legal-Ethics-Opinion",
      "summary": "AI may supplement but never replace a lawyer's own reasoning; AI is at best a secondary source. Diligence requires human oversight and intervention to correct AI mistakes. Notably, the opinion requires client consent to generative-AI use that is informed and confirmed in writing, one of the strictest consent positions in the country. Lawyers must vet terms of use and privacy policies, supervise AI like nonlawyer assistance, and monitor tools for errors and bias.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "diligence",
        "written consent",
        "confidentiality",
        "supervision",
        "bias monitoring"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "Strictest client-consent position nationally: informed consent confirmed in writing.",
      "last_verified": "2026-06-10"
    },
    {
      "id": "wisconsin-ethics-counsel-gai",
      "jurisdiction": "State Bar of Wisconsin (ethics counsel)",
      "state": "WI",
      "name": "Ethical Dilemma: Ethical Considerations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-10-04",
      "date_precision": "day",
      "url": "https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=97&Issue=9&ArticleID=30672",
      "summary": "The State Bar of Wisconsin's official Ethical Dilemma column in Wisconsin Lawyer, 97 Wis. Law. 29-32, written by State Bar ethics counsel Sarah E. Peterson. Applying SCR 20:1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c), and 5.1 and 5.3 through the lens of ABA Formal Opinion 512: generative AI is permitted with technological competence; all output must be independently verified; informed client consent is required before confidential client information enters self-learning tools; a client's instruction not to use generative AI must be honored; only actual time may be billed; and firms should adopt AI policies and training.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "communication",
        "fees",
        "confidentiality",
        "consent",
        "verification",
        "candor",
        "supervision"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    },
    {
      "id": "wyoming-bar-counsel-gai",
      "jurisdiction": "Wyoming State Bar (Bar Counsel)",
      "state": "WY",
      "name": "Transitioning to Generative AI? Don't Leave the Rules of Professional Conduct Behind",
      "type": "guidance",
      "date": "2024-02",
      "date_precision": "month",
      "url": "https://digitaleditions.walsworth.com/publication/?i=815132&article_id=4723910&view=articleBrowser",
      "summary": "An article by Wyoming State Bar Counsel Mark W. Gifford in Wyoming Lawyer, the bar's official magazine. Generative AI is a starting point, never a finished product, and never a source of citations without verification, grounded in W.R.Prof.Cond. 1.1 comment [6] and Rule 1.3; client-identifying data stays out of generative AI tools under Rule 1.6; hourly clients may not be charged for time generative AI saved, under Rule 1.5; firms need uniform AI policies and training under Rules 5.1 through 5.3; and candor duties under Rules 3.1 and 3.3, plus W.R.Civ.P. 11(b), govern everything filed.",
      "key_duties": [
        "competence",
        "diligence",
        "verification",
        "confidentiality",
        "fees",
        "supervision",
        "candor"
      ],
      "status": "current",
      "notes": "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.",
      "last_verified": "2026-07-01"
    }
  ]
}