{ "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": "2026-06-11", "count": 32, "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": "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": "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.", "last_verified": "2026-06-10" }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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" } ] }