A free, independent, plain-English tracker of every state bar ethics opinion, court rule, and official guidance on lawyers using generative AI. Honest labeling, visible change log, downloadable data.https://legalaicompliance.help/en-ushttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-21-sanctions-thirteen/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-21-sanctions-thirteen/A fetch pass verified thirteen new cases against the courts' own opinions and orders, taking the dataset from six to nineteen. Federal additions: Fletcher v. Experian (5th Cir., Feb. 18, 2026, $2,500, generative AI found); Wadsworth v. Walmart (D. Wyo., Feb. 24, 2025, $5,000, from an internal Morgan & Morgan platform the court expressly found was not ChatGPT); In re Kheir (Bankr. S.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2025, opposing-party fees and costs); Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Ala., July 23, 2025, public reprimand and disqualification of three Butler Snow attorneys, ChatGPT conceded and found); United States v. Hayes (E.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025, $1,500, no express AI finding); United States v. Farris (6th Cir., Apr. 3, 2026, forfeiture of Criminal Justice Act compensation and removal, Westlaw's CoCounsel named); and Davis v. Marion County (S.D. Ind., $2,000 imposed May 20, 2026). State additions: Kruse v. Karlen (Mo. App., Feb. 13, 2024, $10,000 against a self-represented appellant); In re: Sanctions Order of Kerry Kenney (La. App. 5th Cir., Oct. 23, 2025, $1,368 against attorney Connie P. Trieu, with ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini named); and four Oregon Court of Appeals decisions that built a per-infraction fee schedule for AI-fabricated authority — Ringo v. Colquhoun (Dec. 3, 2025, $2,000), Powell v. Employment Department (Feb. 11, 2026, $500 against a self-represented petitioner), Doiban v. OLCC (Mar. 18, 2026, $10,000, the largest of the group), and Williams v. Honl (Apr. 22, 2026, $8,044.25). Every row records the court's AI-attribution exactly, from named tools to no express finding at all. Two citation cautions were resolved along the way: the reporter pincites some sources attach to Kheir and Kenney could not be verified in any primary or secondary record, so both are cited by docket; and the Oregon matter some trackers caption under the attorney name Watson is the same case as Ringo, and is listed once.Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-arkansas-adopted/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-arkansas-adopted/A live read of the Arkansas Judiciary's own opinions and rules databases resolved the adoption question this tracker had carried since the June 5, 2025 proposals went out for comment. The Arkansas Supreme Court adopted Administrative Order No. 25, Artificial Intelligence, by per curiam order on December 11, 2025 (2025 Ark. 220), effective immediately, after the comment period closed without substantive comments; the order now appears in the court's current Administrative Orders compilation with the history line Adopted December 11, 2025. The same day, the court adopted the companion amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct (2025 Ark. 221), adding Preamble paragraph 22, under which nothing in the rules prohibits an attorney's use of non-human assistance including AI but such use does not excuse or mitigate any violation, and retitling Rule 5.3 to Nonlawyer Assistance. Both dataset entries flip from proposed to current court rules with day-precision adoption dates, and the Arkansas state page has been rewritten to describe the adopted instruments, including an honest scope note: the administrative order's binding prohibition runs to court staff and court systems, while its awareness section reaches everyone entering client or court data into generative AI, attorneys included. One caution recorded: the court's posted current-ARPC compilation still showed rule current to June 12, 2025 at verification time, so the adoption per curiams are the operative primaries.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-california-sb-574/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-california-sb-574/Added SB 574 (Umberg) as a proposed instrument after verifying the bill text and status on the Legislature's own site. As amended July 2, 2026, the bill would add Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, providing that an attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence and imposing duties on attorneys who use it, including keeping confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information out of public generative AI systems; amend Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, the filing-certification and sanctions statute; and add sections 180 and 1282.1, requiring judicial officers to disclose generative AI reliance in rulings and making arbitrators responsible for all aspects of an award regardless of AI use. The bill passed the Senate and cleared the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee 15 to 0 on July 1, 2026; it is in Assembly floor process and is not law. The California page now covers all three tracks: the approved practical guidance, the proposed conduct-rule amendments, and the bill.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-fabrications-watch-colorado/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-fabrications-watch-colorado/A competitor state-ethics page presents Colorado Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 145 as a March 2024 formal opinion specifically addressing AI use by attorneys, and builds billing, confidentiality, and disclosure guidance on it. The Colorado Bar's own formal-opinions index tells a different story: Formal Opinion 145 is Discrimination; Bias, dated May 14, 2022, and no AI opinion appears anywhere in the index, which runs through opinion 151. Colorado's actual AI instrument is the Supreme Court's Rule Change 2026(02), a conduct-rule amendment already in this dataset. The item follows this page's standing protocol: the subject page was re-fetched live on publication day, July 19, 2026, an independent Wayback Machine archive was captured the same day, and the claim is quoted verbatim against the primary record it fails. A second site that previously carried the same fabricated citation no longer does, and is therefore not documented; this page publishes only what is live.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-sanctions-four-promotions/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-sanctions-four-promotions/Four cases pass primary-source verification and enter the sanctions dataset. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023), the foundational case, verified against the court's Opinion and Order on Sanctions: a $5,000 penalty imposed jointly and severally on two attorneys and their firm under Rule 11, with mandatory notification letters to the client and to every judge falsely named as the author of a fake opinion; ChatGPT is expressly named. Grant v. City of Long Beach, Nos. 22-56121/22-56143 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), verified against the court's published opinion: opening brief stricken in its entirety and the appeal dismissed over fabricated and misrepresented case law; the opinion never mentions AI, and the dataset records that absence rather than assuming attribution. Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., No. B331918 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2025), verified against the published opinion: $10,000 against counsel payable to the clerk, with a State Bar referral, after the court found 21 of 23 quotations in the opening brief fabricated by generative AI tools counsel conceded using. Prososki v. Regan, No. S-25-295 (Neb. Mar. 20, 2026), verified against the official Advance Sheets opinion: brief stricken, appeal dismissed, and counsel referred to the Counsel for Discipline; counsel denied AI use and the court held the analysis is the same regardless, so the dataset records no AI finding. Also verified this pass: United States v. Cohen, 18-CR-602 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2024), in which the court expressly declined to impose sanctions for Google Bard-generated fake citations after finding no bad faith — recorded in our working roster and excluded from this dataset precisely because no sanction issued. The dataset lists only what the courts' own documents support: six cases, each with its AI-attribution status stated exactly.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-states-tranche-5/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-19-states-tranche-5/Added deep-dive pages for Alabama and Kansas plus two no-instrument state pages for Connecticut and Indiana, all built from a live browser session against sources that block automated fetch. Alabama contributes a new instrument, and an upgrade on what was expected: the Alabama State Bar's numbered Formal Opinion 2026-01, Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules, the newest of the bar's 141 formal opinions. Its premise is that AI does not create new ethical duties but recontextualizes competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fees, and client communication, and it closes with a per-matter checklist; the opinion document is undated, so the entry carries year precision, 2026, and nothing more specific. The Connecticut page records a dated verified negative, the CBA informal-ethics index read in full through opinion 25-04 with no AI opinion, alongside judiciary activity that is employee-facing by the Judicial Branch's own description. The Indiana page records a verified negative against an ISBA opinion index whose newest listed year is 2020. The Kansas page documents Supreme Court Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 of February 27, 2025, creating the court system's Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee, as judiciary activity, and states the bar-side posture precisely: the Kansas Bar Association does not publicly index its ethics advisory opinions, so no Kansas AI ethics opinion is publicly listed. Two jurisdictions remain deferred rather than guessed: Maryland's task-force report sits behind a member login, and South Dakota's judiciary guidance PDF is no longer reachable at its known address and was never archived, so nothing is asserted about either. The tracker now lists 55 instruments across 49 of 51 jurisdiction pages.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/alabama/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/alabama/Alabama has a numbered formal opinion on AI: Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01, Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules, the newest of the 141 opinions in the bar's formal-opinions index. The opinion document is undated, so this tracker records it as 2026, year precision, and its core framing is that AI creates no new duties but recontextualizes the existing ones.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/connecticut/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/connecticut/Connecticut had no attorney-facing AI instrument as of July 19, 2026: the CBA's informal ethics opinions index, inspected in full that day, runs 2011 through 2025 and contains no AI opinion, with cloud computing (13-07) and online storage (11-03) the closest technology items. The Judicial Branch's July 2024 AI committee report is policy for Branch employees, not attorneys, and a standing committee on AI in the legal system is study activity.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/indiana/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/indiana/Indiana had no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 19, 2026. The ISBA's Legal Ethics opinion index, inspected that day, lists no opinions newer than its 2020 year group, nothing at all for 2021 through 2026, and nothing on AI. Judiciary movement is limited to reported AI toolkit activity on internal platforms, which this tracker records as reported and nothing more.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/kansas/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/kansas/Kansas has one identified county-level AI rule, Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125, whose verified record is still pending, so it carries no dataset entry yet. Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 2025-CM-017, filed February 27, 2025, created a 21-member Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee: study activity, not a rule for lawyers. The KBA does not publicly index its ethics advisory opinions, and no Kansas AI ethics opinion was publicly listed as of July 19, 2026.Sun, 19 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-california-day-precision/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-california-day-precision/The State Bar of California's Ethics and Technology Resources page confirms that the Board of Trustees approved the updated revisions to the Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law on May 14, 2026. Our California entry previously carried month-level precision (approval reported in May 2026); it now carries the verified day.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-fabrications-watch/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-fabrications-watch/Launched a public log of legal-AI ethics citations published on other sites that fail primary-source verification, including a claimed Utah opinion that appears in no Utah State Bar index (the citation appears to be fabricated), a claimed Illinois State Bar Association generative-AI opinion that its published index does not contain (also apparently fabricated), a West Virginia no-guidance claim contradicted by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board's Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (June 2024), and three state mandates described on a vendor blog that we could not locate in any primary source. Every item carries a live re-fetch date, an independent Wayback Machine archive, and the primary record we checked it against. Corrections invited: verified fixes ship within a week.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-ninth-circuit-rule-32-1-note/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-ninth-circuit-rule-32-1-note/Added the Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, adopted with the court's December 1, 2025 circuit-rule revisions. The note states that the rules do not directly regulate how a filing is produced, including by employing generative artificial intelligence, but that the signature required by FRAP 32(d) is an attestation that the signer has reviewed the filing and is responsible for its contents. The Ninth Circuit applied the note in Lnu v. Blanche, No. 24-4790 (June 3, 2026), a published order suspending two attorneys from practice before that court for six months and fining each $2,500 over fabricated citations and repeated lack of candor. Tracked as guidance; the tracker now lists 36 instruments.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-rule-11-suggestion/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-rule-11-suggestion/Added Rules Suggestion 26-CV-21, submitted May 29, 2026 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Barksdale and docketed with the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, proposing a new FRCP 11(a) certification that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited, modeled on Florida's 2026 rule amendment. This is the earliest stage of federal rulemaking, a docketed suggestion pending consideration, not a proposed amendment published for public comment. Listed as proposed, not law.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-sanctions-dataset/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-sanctions-dataset/Launched a new open dataset of court sanctions decisions from the generative-AI era, each verified against the court's own published document before listing, downloadable as JSON or CSV under CC BY 4.0 from the new sanctions page. It seeds with two 2026 federal appellate cases. Lnu v. Blanche, No. 24-4790 (9th Cir. June 3, 2026), a published disciplinary order, fined two attorneys $2,500 each and suspended them from practice before the Ninth Circuit for six months, with a two-year AI-use certification condition on future filings and a referral to the State Bar of California; no specific AI tool is named in the order, and the attorneys conceded unauthorized generative-AI use by unlicensed brief writers was more likely than not the source. Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn., Nos. 24-5918/5919, 25-5424 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026) imposed $15,000 in punitive sanctions on each of two attorneys plus appellees' appellate attorneys' fees and double costs over briefs with over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact; the court made no express AI finding, so the dataset records it as a fabricated-citations case, not a confirmed AI case. The dataset is deliberately small and grows only as cases pass primary-source verification.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-1/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-1/Added full deep-dive pages for Alaska, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah, and Vermont, each written from that state's verified instruments in the dataset: Alaska Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (a formal opinion adopted April 23, 2025), the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers Office of Bar Counsel article The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (2024), the State Bar of Michigan's Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys FAQs (November 18, 2024, fee questions added February 11, 2025), the MSBA AI Working Group Final Report (adopted summer 2024), Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (April 25, 2024), the Utah State Bar's May 2023 ChatGPT article (with a pointer to the fabricated Utah opinion citation documented on the corrections page), and the Vermont judiciary's VJCAIC First Annual Report (March 2025). State deep-dive coverage now stands at 24 of the 51 U.S. jurisdictions, the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-2/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-2/Added deep-dive pages for Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, and Hawaii, plus the tracker's first two no-instrument state pages, Delaware and Idaho. Five instruments enter the dataset: proposed Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25 on artificial intelligence (2025 Ark. 117) and the companion proposed amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct (2025 Ark. 115), both published for comment June 5, 2025 and both listed strictly as proposals pending confirmation of their final adoption status; Colorado Rule Change 2026(02), adopted January 8, 2026 and effective immediately, the first AI-specific amendment to a state's professional conduct rules adopted by a state supreme court that is recorded in this tracker; the State Bar of Georgia's Generative AI Toolkit (last updated February 20, 2026); and the Final Report of Hawaii's Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (December 15, 2025). The Delaware and Idaho pages document dated, verified negatives against the primary indexes we inspected, alongside each state's judiciary activity. State page coverage now stands at 30 of 51 jurisdictions, and the tracker lists 41 instruments.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-3/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-3/Added deep-dive pages for Louisiana, Montana, and New Hampshire, plus four no-instrument state pages for Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, and Nevada. Six instruments enter the dataset. Louisiana's is the January 22, 2024 letter on the emergence of artificial intelligence from the Louisiana Supreme Court to the Louisiana State Bar Association, written by the Court's General Counsel at the Justices' direction and concluding that existing rules are robust and broad enough to cover AI in its current forms, tracked as guidance. Montana contributes the tracker's first district-level local court rules, each scoped to its own counties because Montana has no statewide instrument: Fourth Judicial District Rules of Practice Rule 3.G on pleading requirements for generative AI use (Missoula and Mineral Counties, October 31, 2025 rules revision) and Thirteenth Judicial District Local Rule 35 on artificial intelligence (Yellowstone County, adopted and effective January 1, 2026). New Hampshire contributes the NHBA Ethics Committee's three-article series, tracked as guidance rather than formal opinions: Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (May 15, 2024), Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence (September 10, 2024), and Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence and The Potential for Discrimination and Bias (October 30, 2024). The Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, and Nevada pages document dated, verified negatives against the indexes we inspected, alongside each state's judiciary, committee, legislative, and case activity. State page coverage now stands at 37 of 51 jurisdictions, and the tracker lists 47 instruments.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-4/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-07-01-states-tranche-4/Added deep-dive pages for North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, plus two no-instrument state pages for South Carolina and Tennessee. Six instruments enter the dataset. North Dakota contributes the court system's Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (June 1, 2026), practitioner-facing guidance that permits AI while leaving full responsibility for filings, fabricated citations included, with the attorney or self-represented litigant. Ohio contributes the Board of Professional Conduct's April 2026 guide, Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers, carried with its own framing intact: nonbinding staff guidance that expressly does not reflect the views of the Board or the Supreme Court of Ohio. Oklahoma contributes Rule 1.17 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (2026 OK CR 7, effective February 18, 2026), which requires every AI-produced or AI-modified portion of an OCCA filing to be verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document, and which is the first criminal-appellate AI rule recorded in this tracker. Rhode Island contributes its Supreme Court's order of June 17, 2026, tracked as a court rule with dual character: it amends the comment to the professional-conduct competence rule, a binding conduct-rule comment amendment, and it adopts advisory Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI for lawyers and judicial officers by court order. Wisconsin contributes the State Bar ethics counsel's official Ethical Dilemma column on generative AI (Wisconsin Lawyer, October 4, 2024), and Wyoming contributes Bar Counsel Mark W. Gifford's article in the February 2024 Wyoming Lawyer, each tracked as bar-staff guidance. The South Carolina and Tennessee pages document dated, verified negatives against the indexes we inspected, alongside each state's judiciary, bar, and case activity. State page coverage now stands at 45 of 51 jurisdictions, and the tracker lists 53 instruments.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/alaska/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/alaska/Alaska regulates lawyers' generative AI use through Ethics Opinion 2025-1, a numbered formal opinion the Bar's Board of Governors adopted on April 23, 2025. What it holds on competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, and verification, and why other trackers keep leaving it out.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/arkansas/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/arkansas/Arkansas adopted both of its AI instruments on December 11, 2025, effective immediately: Administrative Order No. 25 on artificial intelligence (2025 Ark. 220) and companion amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct adding Preamble paragraph 22 (2025 Ark. 221). This page covers what each one binds and how adoption was verified against the court's own databases.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/colorado/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/colorado/On January 8, 2026 the Colorado Supreme Court adopted Rule Change 2026(02), writing artificial intelligence into the Rules of Professional Conduct through a new Scope paragraph 20A and revised Rule 1.1 comments. It is the first AI-specific conduct-rule amendment by a state supreme court recorded in this tracker.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/delaware/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/delaware/Delaware had no attorney-facing AI instrument as of July 1, 2026: the DSBA ethics-opinions index stops at a 2021 remote-practice opinion. The bench is another story, with a Delaware Supreme Court interim generative-AI policy for judges and court personnel adopted October 21, 2024. What binds whom, and what governs lawyers meanwhile.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/georgia/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/georgia/Georgia's operative instrument is the State Bar's Generative AI Toolkit, rule-by-rule practical guidance last updated February 20, 2026 that expressly declines to be a formal advisory opinion. Also covered: the Judicial Council AI report we have flagged but not yet verified, and what FAO 24-1 is actually about.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/hawaii/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/hawaii/Hawaii's instrument is the Final Report of the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (SCMF-24-0000305, December 15, 2025): existing rules, including the HRPC, already reach generative AI, so no rule changes were proposed. Education, a standing tool-vetting committee, and a continued committee were recommended instead.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/idaho/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/idaho/Idaho had issued no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026; the State Bar's formal-opinions index ends at FEO 137, a September 2024 opinion on public-defender conflicts. The judiciary began a yearlong AI-principles effort in September 2025, with recommendations to the Idaho Supreme Court still pending.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/iowa/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/iowa/Iowa had no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026: the Iowa State Bar Association's ethics-opinions index ends at Opinion 19-02 with nothing on AI. The judiciary's AI working group, led by Justice Christopher McDonald, and a new ISBA AI committee mark where movement is happening.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/louisiana/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/louisiana/Louisiana's AI instrument is a letter: on January 22, 2024 the Louisiana Supreme Court, through General Counsel David Becker writing at the Justices' direction, told the state bar that existing rules are robust and broad enough to cover current AI. What the letter says, what it cites, and what Louisiana has deliberately not issued.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/maine/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/maine/Maine had no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026: the Professional Ethics Commission's opinions stop at No. 228 with nothing on AI, and the judiciary's rules and administrative orders were clean through January 2026. The state's AI energy sits in the executive branch, which does not regulate lawyers.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/massachusetts/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/massachusetts/Massachusetts regulates lawyers' AI use through education, not a formal opinion: 'The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence,' a 2024 bar counsel article from the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers Office of Bar Counsel, applies Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3 to generative AI. Smith v. Farwell shows the sanctions risk is already local.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/michigan/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/michigan/Michigan's instrument is 'Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions,' State Bar of Michigan guidance published November 18, 2024 with fee questions added February 11, 2025. It requires MRPC 1.6(c)(1) consent before protected information enters a tool and splits AI billing into three lanes.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/minnesota/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/minnesota/Minnesota's instrument is a report, not an opinion: the MSBA AI Working Group Final Report, adopted by the Assembly in summer 2024, centers on UPL and access to justice and recommends an AI regulatory sandbox so nonprofits can deploy LLMs to close the justice gap.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/missouri/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/missouri/Missouri answered a lawyer's firm-policy question with Informal Opinion 2024-11 (April 25, 2024), an official informal advisory opinion of the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel under Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c): training first, platform vetting, verification, independent judgment, and fee reasonableness.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/montana/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/montana/Montana has no statewide AI instrument. Its rules live at the district level: the Fourth Judicial District's Rule 3.G (Missoula and Mineral Counties, in the October 31, 2025 rules revision) and the Thirteenth Judicial District's Rule 35 (Yellowstone County, effective January 1, 2026), the first district-level local rules recorded in this tracker.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/nebraska/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/nebraska/Nebraska had no state-level AI instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026, but its Supreme Court has already confronted AI-fabricated citations: Prososki v. Regan, called for argument February 3, 2026, is reported to involve a brief struck over 57 defective AI citations, handled under the existing conduct rules.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/nevada/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/nevada/Nevada had no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026: the State Bar's formal opinions stop at No. 61, from February 2025, with nothing on AI. The court system's AI guide is written for the bench, the bar's AI Advisory Group has published nothing, and the 2023 bar-journal pieces are private commentary.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-hampshire/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-hampshire/New Hampshire's AI guidance is a three-part series: the NHBA Ethics Committee published practical-ethics articles in May, September, and October 2024 covering adoption, drafting, and bias. No formal NHBA opinion and no judiciary order existed at our checks; a Special Committee on AI is developing further guidance.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/north-dakota/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/north-dakota/North Dakota's instrument is the court system's Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, dated June 1, 2026: AI is not prohibited in filings, no disclosure is required just for using it, and every error it introduces belongs to whoever signed. The State Bar Association of North Dakota has no AI ethics opinion.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/ohio/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/ohio/Ohio's attorney-facing AI document is the Board of Professional Conduct's April 2026 ethics guide for lawyers and judicial officers, nonbinding staff guidance by its own terms. It demands verification of every output, actual-time billing, and no client-identifying data in free or public tools, and it tells judges never to decide or first-draft with AI.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/oklahoma/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/oklahoma/Oklahoma's instrument is Rule 1.17 of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, effective February 18, 2026: every AI-produced or AI-modified portion of an OCCA filing must be verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document, on pain of waiver, striking, or contempt. The bar has no AI ethics opinion.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/rhode-island/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/rhode-island/Rhode Island's June 17, 2026 Supreme Court order does two things at once: it amends the competence rule's comment, which is binding rulemaking, and it adopts advisory Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI for lawyers and judicial officers. This page keeps the binding and advisory layers apart.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/south-carolina/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/south-carolina/South Carolina had no attorney-facing AI instrument as of July 1, 2026: page one of the Bar's Ethics Advisory Opinions index, inspected that day, lists nothing on AI. The Judicial Branch announced an interim generative-AI policy for judges and court staff in August 2025, described here on the announcement's authority.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/tennessee/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/tennessee/Tennessee had no AI-specific instrument for lawyers as of July 1, 2026: the Board of Professional Responsibility's formal-opinions index, inspected in full that day, contains none. A bar task force has published nothing, a Supreme Court public-comment order awaits primary review, and the biggest sanctions case with Tennessee facts, Whiting, is federal.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/utah/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/utah/Utah has no numbered ethics opinion on generative AI. Its only AI-specific bar publication is 'Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations,' an informal Utah State Bar article from May 2023. What the article advises, what the AI Standing Committee does, and the fabricated Utah citation to avoid.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/vermont/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/vermont/Vermont's guidance comes from the judiciary, not the bar: the First Annual Report of the Vermont Judiciary Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (March 2025) concluded no conduct-rule amendments are warranted and issued five-point lawyer guidance in Appendix G.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/wisconsin/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/wisconsin/Wisconsin's instrument is the State Bar ethics counsel's official Ethical Dilemma column on generative AI (October 4, 2024); no formal ethics opinion exists. Activity includes a Waukesha County standing order whose text is pending review, a private rule petition before the Supreme Court, and a court-system AI committee.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/wyoming/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/wyoming/Wyoming publishes no formal ethics opinions, so its most official attorney-facing AI writing is Bar Counsel Mark W. Gifford's February 2024 Wyoming Lawyer article: generative AI is a starting point, never a finished product, and never a citation source without verification.Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-california-revision/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-california-revision/Confirmed that California's Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI was revised in 2026 to add duties for agentic AI at the California Supreme Court's request, with State Bar Board of Trustees approval reported in May 2026. The separate proposed binding rule amendments remain in the pipeline and are still listed as proposed, not law.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-florida-rule/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-florida-rule/The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (Case No. SC2026-0673, approved May 28, 2026, effective June 15, 2026): by signing a filing, the signer certifies that the legal authorities cited exist and are accurately cited, with express sanctions authority. A companion administrative order preempts circuit-level AI orders to create one statewide standard. Added as a court rule; the tracker now lists 34 instruments.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-illinois-ardc/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-13-illinois-ardc/Added the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission's official Illinois Attorney's Guide to Implementing AI (October 24, 2025), which complements the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy with a classify-the-data, identify-the-tool, evaluate-the-safeguards framework plus a Practice Resource Kit. Tracked as guidance, distinct from a formal opinion.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/arizona/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/arizona/Arizona's generative AI rules come from the Supreme Court's AI steering committee, not the state bar: 'Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges' (guidance, November 14, 2024), the seven duties it sets, and what makes it different.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/district-of-columbia/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/district-of-columbia/D.C. Ethics Opinion 388 explained: a numbered formal opinion from 2024 on attorneys' use of generative AI, the hallucination-aware competence standard, the duty to check whether a tool trains on your inputs, and the client-file preservation duty.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/illinois/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/illinois/Illinois has two AI instruments and no state-bar formal opinion: the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (no AI disclosure required; users fully accountable) and the ARDC's Illinois Attorney's Guide to Implementing AI, with its classify-identify-evaluate framework and Practice Resource Kit.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/kentucky/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/kentucky/Kentucky's generative AI requirements for lawyers: KBA Ethics Opinion E-457, a numbered formal opinion adopted March 15, 2024, and the seven questions it answers on competence, disclosure, fees, confidentiality, and supervision.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/mississippi/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/mississippi/Mississippi has two AI instruments: Ethics Opinion No. 267 (a formal opinion, November 14, 2024) and the later 'AI Tools for Lawyers: A Practical Guide' (guidance, July 1, 2025). What each one does, and why the ethics duties live in the opinion.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-jersey/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-jersey/New Jersey's AI authority is court-issued: the New Jersey Supreme Court's Preliminary Guidelines (January 24, 2024) impose no new RPC duties, require verifying all AI output, and do not require disclosing AI use to a tribunal.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-mexico/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-mexico/New Mexico's generative AI requirements for lawyers: Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004, a numbered formal opinion adopted September 24, 2024, and its duties on confidentiality, independent verification, conflicts, and supervision.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/oregon/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/oregon/Oregon's instrument on lawyers and AI is Formal Opinion 2025-205, a numbered formal opinion approved by the Board of Governors in February 2025, emphasizing ongoing technology competence and a model-by-model confidentiality analysis. What it requires and what to do now.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/pennsylvania/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/pennsylvania/Pennsylvania's AI ethics authority is Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, issued together by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association in May 2024: twelve best practices, verification, consent where needed, and advisory (non-binding) status.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/virginia/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/virginia/Virginia has three AI instruments: the VSB's website guidance (2024), the voluntary VBA Model AI Policy (2024), and VSB Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 on fees and generative AI, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia (effective November 24, 2025). How they fit together.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/washington/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/washington/Washington's instrument on lawyers and AI is WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05, an advisory ethics opinion that deliberately covers machine-learning, generative, agentic, and future autonomous tools. What it requires and what to do now.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/west-virginia/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/west-virginia/West Virginia LEO 24-01 is the strictest AI consent rule in the country: it requires client consent to generative-AI use that is informed and confirmed in writing. Here is what the Lawyer Disciplinary Board opinion requires and how it differs from every other state.Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-ca-watch/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-ca-watch/COPRAC's proposed amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 finished public comment May 4, 2026. If adopted, these would be the first binding state disciplinary rules written specifically for AI. Listed as proposed, not law.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-launch/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-launch/Initial dataset: 16 formal ethics opinions (including ABA Formal Opinion 512), 10 guidance documents, 3 reports, 2 court rules/policies, and 1 pending rule proposal, every entry verified against its primary source. Honest labeling distinguishes formal opinions from guidance, reports, and court rules.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-ny-part-161/https://legalaicompliance.help/changelog/#2026-06-10-ny-part-161/New York's system-wide court rule on AI use took effect June 1, 2026. It is permissive: no system-wide disclosure duty, with an optional Appendix A certification model rule for individual courts. Tracker entry and the court-disclosure explainer updated.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/aba-formal-opinion-512/https://legalaicompliance.help/aba-formal-opinion-512/What ABA Formal Opinion 512 actually requires of lawyers using generative AI: the six duties, what changed, and a compliance checklist.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-billing-ethics-rule-1-5/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-billing-ethics-rule-1-5/The Rule 1.5 rules for billing in the AI era: what you can bill, what you cannot, who keeps the efficiency gains, and Virginia LEO 1901's answer for flat and value-based fees.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-client-confidentiality-rule-1-6/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-client-confidentiality-rule-1-6/The Rule 1.6 analysis for generative AI: how every ethics authority treats client data in AI tools, the open-versus-closed model distinction, anonymization standards, and the state-by-state consent spectrum.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-disclosure-to-clients/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-disclosure-to-clients/When lawyers must disclose AI use to clients, when consent is required, and how to handle it in engagement letters: the full spectrum from no per se duty to West Virginia's written consent.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-hallucination-sanctions-rule-3-3/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-hallucination-sanctions-rule-3-3/Why courts sanction lawyers for AI-fabricated citations, what Rule 3.3 requires, the caselaw from Mata v. Avianca forward, and the verification workflow that prevents it.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-supervision-rules-5-1-5-3/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-supervision-rules-5-1-5-3/How the supervision duties work when the 'assistant' is an AI tool or a staff member using one: who is responsible, what measures bars expect, and how firms evidence them.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/ai-tool-risk-tiers/https://legalaicompliance.help/ai-tool-risk-tiers/A risk-tier framework for classifying AI tools before client work touches them: what separates consumer chatbots, enterprise deployments, embedded research-platform AI, and legal-specific tools.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/can-lawyers-use-chatgpt/https://legalaicompliance.help/can-lawyers-use-chatgpt/Yes, with conditions. What every U.S. ethics authority says about lawyers using ChatGPT and other generative AI: confidentiality, verification, billing, and when you must tell the client.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/court-ai-disclosure-orders/https://legalaicompliance.help/court-ai-disclosure-orders/The court-by-court layer of AI regulation: standing orders, local rules, New York's Part 161, the Illinois policy, and how to check your judge before filing AI-assisted work.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/law-firm-ai-policy-requirements/https://legalaicompliance.help/law-firm-ai-policy-requirements/No bar flatly mandates a written AI policy, but the supervision duties in ABA Opinion 512 and a dozen state instruments make one practically unavoidable. Here is what it must contain.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/solo-small-firm-ai-compliance-starter/https://legalaicompliance.help/solo-small-firm-ai-compliance-starter/The minimum defensible AI compliance setup for solos and small firms: five artifacts you can build in an afternoon, mapped to the duties bars actually enforce.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/state-ai-disclosure-requirements/https://legalaicompliance.help/state-ai-disclosure-requirements/A side-by-side comparison of client-consent and court-disclosure positions across every jurisdiction with an official AI instrument, honestly labeled by authority type.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/california/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/california/California's generative AI requirements for lawyers: the COPRAC Practical Guidance (2023, revised 2026), the pending rule amendments that would be the nation's first binding AI disciplinary rules, the pending SB 574 legislation, and what to do now.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/florida/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/florida/Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 explained: the consent recommendation, nonlawyer-assistant supervision model, billing limits, the chatbot advertising rule, and the date everyone gets wrong.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-york/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/new-york/New York's three-layer AI framework: the NYSBA Task Force report, NYC Bar Formal Opinions 2024-5 and 2025-6, and 22 NYCRR Part 161, the binding court rule effective June 1, 2026.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/north-carolina/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/north-carolina/North Carolina 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 explained: the Q&A format, privilege vetting before third-party AI, the bluntest billing rule in the country, and the NC checklist.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMThttps://legalaicompliance.help/states/texas/https://legalaicompliance.help/states/texas/Texas Opinion 705 explained: the four core duties for generative AI under the Texas Disciplinary Rules, the Taskforce context, and the practical checklist for Texas firms.Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT