Which States Require AI Disclosure? The Comparison Table
No state requires lawyers to disclose AI use across the board. Client-side, positions range from no per se duty (New Jersey, Virginia guidance, Michigan) through exposure-triggered informed consent (ABA, Florida, Oregon for open models) to West Virginia's written-consent requirement. Court-side, the tracker records ten current court_rule instruments across eight states: New York and Illinois decline statewide filing-disclosure mandates, Florida requires an accuracy-of-authorities certification, and two Montana district rules require AI-use disclosure. Other mapped instruments emphasize accountability, confidentiality, competence, or verification, while individual orders remain forum-specific. The table below keeps each instrument's authority and scope visible.
Quick answer
- No state has a blanket statewide AI-use disclosure mandate.
- Client consent strictest: WV (informed, in writing).
- Open-model consent: OR; exposure-triggered consent: ABA, FL.
- No per se client duty: NJ, VA (guidance), MI, KY (with triggers).
- Courts: NY Part 161 and IL policy decline system-wide disclosure.
- Ten current court_rule entries span eight states; most center accountability or verification, not blanket disclosure.
- Express court-filing disclosure appears in two Montana judicial-district rules; individual orders remain forum-specific.
Reading this table honestly
Two cautions before the comparison. First, authority type matters: a formal ethics opinion, official guidance, a report, and a court rule carry different weight, and this table labels each position’s source type rather than flattening them, consistent with our methodology. Second, “disclosure” hides two different questions: telling the client (a Rule 1.4/1.6 issue) and telling the court (a procedural and candor issue). The table separates them.
Client-side positions
| Jurisdiction | Instrument (type) | Client consent / disclosure position |
|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | LEO 24-01 (formal opinion) | Informed client consent, confirmed in writing. Strictest in the country. |
| Oregon | Op. 2025-205 (formal opinion) | Informed consent before client information enters an open model; broader disclosure per case-specific factors. |
| ABA (national) | Formal Op. 512 (formal opinion) | Informed consent before inputting representation information into tools that may expose it. |
| Florida | Op. 24-1 (formal opinion) | Informed consent recommended before confidential information goes to third-party AI. |
| New York (NYC Bar) | Op. 2024-5 (formal opinion) | Consent for open systems holding confidences; routine embedded AI exempt from disclosure. Op. 2025-6 adds informed consent before AI records or transcribes client conversations. |
| Texas | Op. 705 (formal opinion) | Consider client consent before exposing confidential information to AI. |
| North Carolina | 2024 FEO 1 (formal opinion) | Vet confidentiality and privilege before client-specific data enters third-party AI; AI costs chargeable with consent. |
| Kentucky | E-457 (formal opinion) | No disclosure for routine research; required when outsourced, charged to client, or court rules require. |
| New Mexico | Op. 2024-004 (formal opinion) | Anonymize; listed triggers for discussing AI use with clients. |
| Pennsylvania + Philadelphia | Joint Op. 2024-200 (formal opinion) | Communicate AI use to clients; obtain consent where needed. |
| Arizona | AISC best practices (guidance) | Disclose client-facing chatbots; no duty to flag every internal AI use; advance written disclosure of AI costs. |
| New Jersey | Supreme Court guidelines (guidance) | No blanket duty; disclose if client asks or cannot make informed decisions without knowing. |
| Virginia | VSB web guidance (guidance) | No per se requirement absent agreement or elevated risk. (LEO 1901, a formal opinion, governs the fee side.) |
| Michigan | State Bar FAQs (guidance) | No general duty absent rule triggers; consent under MRPC 1.6(c)(1) before protected information goes in. |
| California | COPRAC guidance (guidance) | Consider disclosure/consent where risks warrant; proposed rule amendments pending as of June 2026 would harden duties. |
| D.C. | Op. 388 (formal opinion) | Consent analysis tied to exposure; preserve AI interactions in client file. |
| Mississippi | Op. 267 (formal opinion) | Informed consent in certain situations under Rule 1.4. |
| Alaska | Op. 2025-1 (formal opinion) | Existing duties govern; consent tied to confidentiality exposure. |
| Washington | AO 2025-05 (advisory opinion) | Protect information shared with tools; no overhead pass-through without consent. |
Court-side positions
The tracker currently admits ten current entries as court_rule across eight states. That dataset category includes statewide court rules and policies, a state-supreme-court administrative order and conduct-rule changes, two district-wide local rules, and one appellate-court rule; it does not mean all ten impose court-filing disclosure. New Jersey guidance and individual orders are retained below as context and are not part of the ten.
| Forum | Instrument (type) | Court disclosure position |
|---|---|---|
| New York (all UCS courts) | 22 NYCRR Part 161 (court rule, eff. June 1, 2026) | AI use permitted; no system-wide disclosure duty; optional Appendix A certification rule for individual courts; sanctions for fabricated material. |
| Illinois (all state courts) | Supreme Court AI policy (court policy) | AI use authorized; no disclosure required in pleadings; full user accountability. |
| Florida (all state courts) | Rule 2.515(d)(2) amendment (court rule, eff. June 15, 2026) | Signing a filing represents that its cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. This is an accuracy certification, not AI-use disclosure; a companion order preempts circuit-level AI certification requirements. |
| Colorado | Rule Change 2026(02) (conduct-rule amendment; tracked as court_rule) | Technology, including AI, does not diminish a lawyer’s responsibilities or independent judgment; lawyers remain subject to discipline for violations resulting from its use. |
| Arkansas Supreme Court | Administrative Order No. 25 (administrative order; tracked as court_rule) | Warns court participants that generative AI may retain inputs and that entering confidential or sealed information may violate governing duties; separately restricts covered court personnel from exposing internal court data to public LLMs. |
| Arkansas Supreme Court | Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble paragraph 22 and Rule 5.3 amendments (conduct-rule amendment; tracked as court_rule) | AI assistance is permitted, but it does not excuse or mitigate a rules violation; lawyers are advised to consult Administrative Order No. 25 before using AI. |
| Montana Fourth Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties) | Rule of Practice 3.G (local court rule) | A party using generative AI in a filing must disclose the use, identify the tool, explain how it was used, and certify that AI-assisted portions were checked for accuracy. A filing without the certification presumptively certifies no generative AI use. |
| Montana Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County) | Local Rule 35 (local court rule, eff. Jan. 1, 2026) | An attorney or self-represented party using generative AI to prepare a filed document must identify the type of AI and certify that every citation to law or the record was verified. |
| Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | Rule 1.17 (appellate court rule, eff. Feb. 18, 2026) | For a filing before that court, every AI-produced or AI-modified portion must be verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. |
| Rhode Island Supreme Court | Article V Rule 1.1 comment [6] amendment and Interim Generative AI Guidelines (conduct-rule amendment plus advisory guidelines; tracked as court_rule) | The rule amendment adds technology competence; the attached lawyer guidelines call for verifying AI output and disclosing AI use when the client asks or when client information is entered. |
| New Jersey (context; not one of the ten) | Supreme Court guidelines (guidance) | No duty to disclose AI use to the court; candor duties fully apply. |
| Individual judges nationwide | Standing orders and local rules (context; not one tracker instrument) | Ropes & Gray’s AI court-order tracker categorized 145 orders as requiring disclosure and/or verification when checked on June 10, 2026; a small number prohibit use. Check every judge, every filing, via the court’s own pages and the Ropes & Gray tracker. |
What the pattern tells you
Across the mapped instruments, accountability and verification are more common than blanket disclosure, but the two Montana district rules expressly require identifying AI use. Court-side disclosure remains forum-specific—district-wide in those two Montana courts and potentially judge-by-judge through standing orders—while client-side disclosure remains relational. That is why the two operational answers are a per-filing forum check and standing engagement-letter language, both covered in the client disclosure guide and the court orders guide. For the underlying instruments with dates, precision flags, and source links, the tracker and its downloadable dataset are the sources this table is derived from.
Frequently asked questions
Which state has the strictest AI consent rule?
West Virginia. Lawyer Disciplinary Board Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 requires client consent to generative AI use that is informed and confirmed in writing, the only written-consent requirement in the country as of June 2026.
Do any states require disclosing AI use to courts?
Not through a blanket statewide rule in the admitted dataset. New York's 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026) and the Illinois Supreme Court's policy decline system-wide filing-disclosure requirements. Two local Montana rules do require AI-use disclosure: Fourth Judicial District Rule 3.G and Thirteenth Judicial District Rule 35. Florida separately imposes a statewide accuracy-of-authorities certification rather than AI-use disclosure; other AI-use requirements and individual standing orders remain forum-specific.
Is this table legal advice for my state?
No. It is a verified summary of each instrument's stated position, with recorded source links from the tracker. Positions carry different authority weights (formal opinion versus guidance versus court rule), instruments change, and application to your practice is exactly what a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction is for.
What about states not in the table?
States absent from the tracker had issued no official instrument as of the last-verified date, which means default rules (competence, confidentiality, candor, supervision) govern AI use without AI-specific gloss. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the standard reference in those jurisdictions.
Primary sources cited
Related guides
For licensed attorneys and firm operators. This site is legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by using it. Rules change; verify against the primary sources linked on every page and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before acting.