State bar AI ethics opinions: a dated tracker, and why the counts differ

How many state bars have issued AI ethics opinions?

It depends on the tracker. Ezel's guide reports 11 states plus DC. Vaquill's guide reports 9 jurisdictions with numbered or formal opinions and describes that count as unverified. NetForLawyers maintains a running list of ethics opinions covering lawyers' use of generative AI and is the broader reference. Those differences are mostly definitions, plus the pace: new guidance is published frequently. Last reviewed: 30 October 2026.

What kinds of instrument are there?

Many 'state counts' mix these types, which is why they disagree.

Which instruments are reported, and what is unverified?

The table lists instruments named in the trackers and news we reviewed. 'Check' means we did not confirm the date or number against the bar's own site. We have not tabulated states we could not source.

What do the opinions have in common?

Read across them and the same duties recur: competence (understand the tool's limits), confidentiality (what you put into it), supervision of lawyers and non-lawyers, candour to tribunals (verify citations), reasonable fees (do not bill hours you did not work), and in some places communication with clients about AI use. That is why a practical workflow often travels between states even when the instruments differ.

• Citation-verification workflow
• ABA Model Rules for cloud and AI
• AI ethics for lawyers

How should I keep my own tracker current?

1. 1

   Start from the bar's page

   Bookmark your bar's ethics opinions page and save the PDF with the retrieval date.

2. 2

   Record the type

   Mark formal opinion, guidance, rule or proposal. Do not summarise a proposal as a rule.

3. 3

   Set a review date

   Quarterly is reasonable given the pace; log what changed.

4. 4

   Store it with the policy

   Link the instrument from your firm AI policy so people can find the source.

In Notion this is a small database: Jurisdiction, Instrument, Type, Date issued, Link, Last checked, Next review.

Where LawyerOS fits

We make LawyerOS. LawyerOS Pro with AI ($39, one-time) has a Research database where a source list like this could live next to your matters. It contains no ethics opinions, does not track regulator updates, and gives no legal advice. The tracker above is a starting point, not a substitute for your bar's own site.

• LawyerOS Starter and Pro with AI: compare and buy
• What LawyerOS includes

Frequently asked questions

Which states have AI ethics opinions?

Trackers name Florida, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi and Michigan among others, plus the ABA nationally. The exact list depends on the definition used, so check the bar's own website and NetForLawyers' running list for the current picture.

Why do trackers give different counts?

They count different things: formal opinions only, or guidance and court rules too; states only, or DC and city bars as well; and some lag behind new publications. One reports 11 states plus DC, another 9 jurisdictions. Always ask for the definition and the date.

Is ABA Formal Opinion 512 binding?

ABA opinions are persuasive, not binding. State rules of professional conduct govern lawyers in each state, and many bars have issued their own opinions. Use 512 as a framework and your state's rules and opinions as the controlling reference.

Does California's AI guidance count as an ethics opinion?

It is described as practical guidance rather than a numbered formal opinion. Commentary disagrees on how binding it is, and it was reported as replaced by a 2026 version. Confirm the current document and its status on calbar.ca.gov.

Are court AI disclosure rules covered here?

Not systematically. Some courts and judges have standing orders on AI disclosure or certification, which bind filers in that court. Check the local rules and the judge's procedures for every court where you appear.