---
title: "State bar AI ethics opinions: a dated tracker, and why the counts differ"
url: https://notionforlawyers.com/blog/state-bar-ai-ethics-opinions-tracker
updated: 2026-10-30
author: Raghav Handa
---

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

There is no single official list. Trackers disagree: one counts 11 states plus DC, another 9 jurisdictions, and NetForLawyers keeps a longer running list, because they treat formal opinions, practical guidance and court rules differently. This tracker separates instrument types, dates each entry and says what we have not verified.

## Key takeaways

- Counts of 'states with AI opinions' differ because the definition differs. Ask what is being counted before comparing.
- Separate formal ethics opinions, practical guidance, court rules and proposals; they carry different weight.
- Every row below is from secondary trackers or news; open the bar's own page before citing any of it.
- Opinions mostly apply existing duties (competence, confidentiality, supervision, candour, fees) to AI.

## 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.

Disclosure: We make LawyerOS, a Notion template, so weigh our view accordingly. This page is organisational information, not legal advice; rules differ by jurisdiction and change quickly, so check your own regulator.


## What kinds of instrument are there?

| Type | What it is | Weight |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Formal opinion | A numbered opinion from a bar ethics committee | Persuasive; some bars treat as authoritative for discipline |
| Practical guidance | A bar publication on good practice (California's is this type) | Guidance; binding status is debated in commentary |
| Court rule or standing order | A court requires disclosure or certification of AI use | Binding on filers in that court |
| Task-force report | A bar group's recommendations | Informational |
| Proposed opinion or rule | Out for comment | Not in force |

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.

| Jurisdiction | Instrument as reported | Type | Our status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ABA (national) | Formal Opinion 512, 29 July 2024 (some sources say 30 July) | Formal opinion | Check date |
| Florida | Advisory Opinion 24-1, January 2024; one guide cites it as 'Ethics Opinion 388' | Formal opinion | Number conflict; check |
| California | State Bar practical guidance, November 2023; 2026 version replaces it per secondary sources | Practical guidance | Check status |
| Texas | Opinion 705, February 2025 | Formal opinion | Check |
| Pennsylvania | Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 | Formal opinion | Check |
| North Carolina | Formal Opinion 2024-1 | Formal opinion | Check |
| Kentucky | E-457 | Formal opinion | Check |
| Mississippi | Ethics Opinion 267 | Formal opinion | Check |
| Michigan | JI-155 | Formal opinion | Check |
| New York City Bar | Formal Opinion 2024-5 (city bar, not state bar) | Formal opinion | Check; not a state instrument |
| Virginia | Proposed opinion on duties when opposing counsel fails to catch AI errors; comment sought May 2026 | Proposed | Not in force |


## 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: https://notionforlawyers.com/blog/ai-hallucination-lawyers-citation-verification-workflow
- ABA Model Rules for cloud and AI: https://notionforlawyers.com/guides/aba-model-rules-cloud-and-ai-for-lawyers
- AI ethics for lawyers: https://notionforlawyers.com/ai/ethics


## How should I keep my own tracker current?

1. Start from the bar's page: Bookmark your bar's ethics opinions page and save the PDF with the retrieval date.
2. Record the type: Mark formal opinion, guidance, rule or proposal. Do not summarise a proposal as a rule.
3. Set a review date: Quarterly is reasonable given the pace; log what changed.
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: https://notionforlawyers.com/#pricing
- What LawyerOS includes: https://notionforlawyers.com/library/lawyer-os


## FAQ

### 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.

## Sources

- [NetForLawyers: ethics opinions covering generative AI](https://www.netforlawyers.com/content/ethics-opinions-covering-lawyers-use-generative-ai-artificial-intelligence)
- [Ezel: state bar rules on lawyers using AI](https://ezel.ai/blog/state-bar-rules-on-lawyers-using-ai)
- [Vaquill: AI legal regulation by state](https://www.vaquill.ai/blog/ai-legal-regulation-by-state)
- [Virginia Lawyers Weekly: Virginia proposed AI opinion](https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/05/29/virginia-state-bar-ethics-opinion-ai-errors/)
- [Mondaq: California State Bar 2026 AI guidance](https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/new-technology/1824118/california-state-bar-issues-2026-ethics-guidance-on-ai-use-in-legal-practice)