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, New York's Part 161 and the Illinois policy expressly decline system-wide disclosure mandates, leaving disclosure to individual judges' standing orders. The table below compares every jurisdiction with an official instrument.
Quick answer
- No jurisdiction has a blanket AI 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.
- Judge-level standing orders are where court disclosure actually lives.
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
| 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. |
| New Jersey | 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 | Hundreds of disclosure, certification, and verification requirements; a small number of prohibitions. Check every judge, every filing, via the court’s own pages and the Ropes & Gray tracker. |
What the pattern tells you
System-level authorities are converging on accountability over disclosure: nobody wants AI-use stickers on briefs; everybody wants the signature to mean the contents were verified. The disclosure burden that remains is local (judge-by-judge) and relational (client-by-client), which 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 primary links, the tracker and its downloadable dataset are the source this table is generated 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?
No state has a system-wide court disclosure rule. New York's 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026) expressly declines to require disclosure, as does the Illinois Supreme Court's policy. Disclosure and certification requirements exist at the individual-judge level through standing orders, catalogued in Ropes & Gray's free tracker.
Is this table legal advice for my state?
No. It is a verified summary of each instrument's stated position, with primary sources linked 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.