Pennsylvania.
Attorney AI ethics guidance status for Pennsylvania as of May 9, 2026. Ethical issues regarding AI use.
Pennsylvania bar AI ethics status. #
The Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association jointly issued Formal Opinion 2024-200 in 2024, addressing the ethical issues of attorney AI use. The opinion emphasizes that while AI can generate work, it does not replace the professional duty to verify all case law references.
Authoritative source: https://www.pabar.org/
Last verified: . If this row text disagrees with the linked source, the source controls.
What this means in practice. #
For practitioners admitted in Pennsylvania, the formal guidance above is the binding professional-conduct anchor for AI use. The recurring duties: (1) maintain competence in the AI tool, (2) protect client confidentiality (do not submit confidential material to public-version AI tools), (3) supervise AI output, and (4) verify all factual and legal content before submission.
Cross-jurisdictional consideration: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is broadly consistent with the Pennsylvania guidance and serves as a federal anchor for multi-state practitioners. Where Pennsylvania guidance is more specific or more restrictive than ABA Op. 512, the Pennsylvania guidance controls within Pennsylvania.
Comparison to ABA Op. 512. #
Joint Op. 2024-200 (Pennsylvania Bar + Philadelphia Bar) closely tracks ABA Op. 512.
- Verification emphasis. The opinion places strong emphasis on the duty to verify AI-cited authority — a framing consistent with the post-Mata federal litigation environment.
- Federal-court overlay. Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa.) issued one of the early federal AI standing orders (June 2023). His order is notably broader than most: it requires disclosure of any AI use (not just generative), and certification that citations are verified as accurate. Pennsylvania practitioners appearing before Judge Baylson face requirements that exceed Op. 2024-200's scope.
Federal court AI standing orders affecting Pennsylvania practitioners. #
Notable for breadth: requires disclosure of any AI use (not just generative) and certification that citations are "verified as accurate." One of the earliest federal AI standing orders and the broadest.
Last verified: . The comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders is maintained by Bloomberg Law and Law360.
AI case-law context for Pennsylvania. #
Pennsylvania sits within the 3rd Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit). Decisions of the 3rd Circuit are binding on the federal courts within Pennsylvania; state-court decisions of the Pennsylvania appellate system bind Pennsylvania's state courts; Supreme Court decisions are binding on everyone. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision directly addressing attorney AI use, so the controlling case law is at the circuit and district levels:
E.D. Pa. — issued one of the broadest federal AI standing orders (June 2023). Requires disclosure of any AI use (not limited to generative) and certification that all citations are verified as accurate.
Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) and Park v. Kim (2d Cir. 2024) are routinely cited as persuasive authority in 3rd Circuit federal courts.
Practitioners in Pennsylvania should treat the cases above as the operating framework for AI-related conduct until Pennsylvania-specific binding precedent or Pennsylvania bar guidance controls a particular question. The verification duty under Mata and Park v. Kim has been routinely cited in sanctions matters across all federal circuits including the 3rd Circuit.
Pennsylvania legal landscape. #
- Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.)
- Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa.)
- Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.)
Pennsylvania is the only state with a Commonwealth Court — an intermediate appellate court for state-agency cases. The Pennsylvania Bar Association is voluntary; the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court handles discipline. Three federal districts. Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa.) issued one of the broadest federal AI standing orders.
Most US states have adopted the substance of ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 — that the duty of competence requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Whether Pennsylvania has adopted Comment 8 verbatim, in modified form, or relies on the underlying Rule 1.1 text alone, the substantive duty of technological competence applies to AI-related practice in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania-specific FAQ.
Has the Pennsylvania bar issued formal AI ethics guidance?
Yes. Pennsylvania has issued: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (2024). The opinion applies the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney AI use. The primary source link in §01 above is authoritative; the comparison to ABA Op. 512 in §03 highlights where Pennsylvania aligns with or diverges from the ABA framework.
Which federal districts cover Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has 3 federal districts: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.), Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa.), and Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.). Federal AI standing orders are typically issued at the individual-judge level. The Bloomberg Law and Law360 trackers maintain the comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders nationwide.
Does Pennsylvania have a mandatory unified bar?
Yes. The Pennsylvania bar is a mandatory unified bar — all licensed attorneys must be members. AI ethics guidance issued by the bar applies to all admitted practitioners. Discipline for AI-related misconduct flows through the bar's formal disciplinary regime under the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's plenary supervisory authority.
What about large-firm practice in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has approximately 50,000 active attorneys, one of the largest US legal markets. Large-firm practice is concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. Firm-wide AI policies, vendor diligence, and supervision frameworks under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct should be documented at the firm level and audited regularly. Pennsylvania's ABA Op. 512-aligned practice expectations are particularly load-bearing in matters that span multiple jurisdictions.
Does AI vendor diligence apply in Pennsylvania?
Yes. The supervisory duty under Pennsylvania's analog to Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) applies to AI vendor relationships. North Carolina's 2024 FEO 1 frames AI vendors explicitly under Rule 5.3, and that framing has been treated as persuasive in other jurisdictions including Pennsylvania. Vendor diligence — privacy-policy review, data-retention terms, training-on-customer-data clauses — is a precondition to selecting an AI tool for client work.
Why Pennsylvania is different. #
Pennsylvania is the only state with a Commonwealth Court — an intermediate appellate court that hears most state-agency administrative appeals, plus original-jurisdiction matters against the Commonwealth. Other states route these through the regular intermediate appellate court or specialized administrative panels. The Commonwealth Court matters for AI regulation because:
- Administrative-agency AI use lands here on appeal. Pennsylvania state agencies (DPW, PennDOT, DOH, etc.) increasingly use AI in benefits-eligibility decisions, licensing, and enforcement. Challenges to AI-driven agency action are briefed in Commonwealth Court. Practitioners arguing AI-related cases there face appellate-court AI-disclosure expectations on top of the bar-level Op. 2024-200.
- Federal court overlay matters. Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa., June 2023) issued one of the broadest federal AI standing orders, requiring disclosure of any AI use (not just generative) and citation-by-citation verification. Pennsylvania attorneys appearing before Judge Baylson face requirements that exceed Op. 2024-200's scope.