State bar AI opinions.

The state of state guidance.

The American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512 in July 2024, the federal-Model-Rules statement on lawyer use of generative artificial intelligence. Within eighteen months, a substantial minority of state bars had issued their own formal opinions or formal guidance applying the equivalent state Rules to the same facts. The result is a patchwork: most states have functional convergence with the ABA position; the texts vary; the procedural posture of the guidance varies more.

This page tracks the adopted opinions and formal guidance documents IXSOR can confirm from primary sources. It does not list every state. States omitted may have no formal guidance, may have informal guidance only, or may be in active drafting at the time of writing. Absent guidance, the underlying state Rules of Professional Conduct govern; an attorney is responsible for applying them.

This page is updated quarterly. The state-bar links below are the controlling sources; the IXSOR readings, where they exist, are operational interpretations.

Federal floor: ABA Op. 512.

The federal Model Rules statement is ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024). The opinion identifies six duties an attorney must satisfy when using generative AI: competence, confidentiality, communication with the client, candor and supervision, reasonable fees, and bias considerations. IXSOR\'s reading is here.

State bars commonly cite Op. 512 as persuasive authority even when their state has not yet adopted its own opinion. An attorney with no state-bar guidance can use Op. 512 as the operational baseline; an attorney whose state has its own opinion uses the state opinion as controlling and Op. 512 as an interpretive companion.

California: practical guidance.

The State Bar of California issued Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law in November 2023. It is the earliest material formal guidance from any major state bar. The document is structured as a list of principles and recommended practices rather than a Rule-by-Rule application.

What is distinctive about the California document: it functions more like a compliance handbook than an opinion. It lists confidentiality obligations, supervision obligations, candor obligations, and fee obligations, with practical recommendations under each. An attorney looking for an operational starting point will find the California document more directive than most state opinions.

The California guidance preceded ABA Op. 512 by eight months. Its conclusions and the ABA\'s converge.

Florida: Op. 24-1.

The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 2024) is among the first formal ethics opinions to address generative AI. It addresses confidentiality, oversight, billing, and advertising in the context of AI-assisted practice. Florida\'s opinion is notable for its explicit treatment of advertising implications: an attorney whose website or marketing materials describe AI capability must comply with Florida\'s advertising rules, which are among the strictest in the country.

For a Florida-admitted attorney, the advertising element matters operationally. A firm that markets its AI use as a differentiator should run the relevant pages past someone familiar with the Florida rules.

New York: Task Force Report.

The New York State Bar Association issued the Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in April 2024. It is a longer document than most state opinions, more in the nature of a task-force report than a Rule-by-Rule formal opinion, but its substantive recommendations track the same five Rules.

What is distinctive about the New York report: it goes well beyond the practising-lawyer ethics question to address AI in courts, AI in legal education, AI in regulation of the profession, and AI policy at the state level. An attorney reading it for ethics-compliance purposes will find the relevant material in specific sections; the rest is policy.

The NYSBA report is a recommendation document, not a binding ethics opinion. An attorney admitted in New York should also track formal opinions issued by the New York State Bar\'s ethics committees and the relevant Appellate Division.

North Carolina: 2024 FEO 1.

The North Carolina State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (adopted Nov. 1, 2024) addresses lawyer use of AI under NC Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.6(c), and 5.3. The opinion is permissive in result and prescriptive in process: an attorney may use AI, including by inputting client data into a third-party AI tool, provided she does so competently, securely, and with appropriate supervision. IXSOR\'s operational reading is here.

The NC opinion\'s most distinctive analytical move is the application of Rule 5.3 to third-party software vendors, importing supervisory duties that previously applied to outside-firm nonlawyer assistants. The opinion expressly declines to address attorney-client privilege, treating the privilege question as a matter of evidentiary law outside the Rules of Professional Conduct.

D.C.: Op. 388.

The District of Columbia Bar Ethics Opinion 388 (2024) addresses lawyer use of generative AI under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion tracks Op. 512 closely, with D.C.-specific framing and emphasis on the supervisory and confidentiality obligations.

For attorneys practising in federal court in the District of Columbia, Op. 388 is the controlling D.C. Bar text. Federal practice in D.C. courts also subjects the attorney to the standing orders and local rules of the relevant federal court (D.D.C., D.C. Circuit), which have moved more aggressively on AI-disclosure requirements than in many other jurisdictions.

Mississippi: practical guide.

The Mississippi Bar issued an AI Practical Guide in 2025 (published on the Mississippi Bar website). The guide is a practitioner-oriented document organised around concrete practice scenarios rather than around Rules of Professional Conduct. Useful as a comparative reference; functionally aligned with Op. 512.

States without confirmed adopted opinions.

Many state bars have not issued a formal AI opinion. Some have published informal guidance, position papers, or task-force reports that do not have the procedural status of a formal ethics opinion. Some have ethics-committee deliberations underway. Some have nothing.

For an attorney in a state without confirmed formal guidance, three operational consequences follow:

• The state Rules of Professional Conduct still govern. The duties under MR 1.1, MR 1.6, MR 3.3, MR 5.3, and MR 1.5 (or their state analogues) are imported by their text.
• ABA Op. 512 functions as persuasive authority. State courts and state bars routinely treat ABA opinions as influential.
• Sister-state opinions function as persuasive authority. The texts of CA, FL, NY, NC, D.C., MS, and other adopting states converge on a common analytical pattern; that convergence is itself authority.

The absence of an opinion does not absolve compliance. It shifts the work of identifying the controlling standard onto the attorney.

The common analytical pattern.

Across every adopted opinion and formal guidance document IXSOR has reviewed, the same five-duty pattern recurs. The framing differs; the substance does not.

• Competence. The attorney must understand the AI tool, including its failure modes. State formulation: MR 1.1 + Comment 8 (or equivalent).
• Confidentiality. Inputs to AI tools must satisfy reasonable-efforts protection of client information. State formulation: MR 1.6(c).
• Supervision. AI work product must be supervised, with the AI vendor frequently treated as a nonlawyer assistant for supervisory purposes. State formulation: MR 5.3 (and 5.1 where partner-level supervision is at issue).
• Candor and verification. Filed work product must be verified. Citations must be real. State formulation: MR 3.3 + procedural Rule 11.
• Fees and communication. Fees must be reasonable; material AI use should be communicated to the client. State formulation: MR 1.5, MR 1.4.

An attorney who internalises this five-duty pattern can read any new state opinion in under thirty minutes and identify the state-specific deltas. The deltas tend to be in framing, in advertising rules where the state has them (Florida, Texas), and in court-rule disclosure obligations where the state\'s courts have promulgated standing orders.

Multi-state practice.

An attorney admitted in multiple states must comply with each state\'s Rules and any AI-specific opinion adopted in each state. The exposure is cumulative: a multi-state attorney can be subject to discipline in any state where she is admitted, on any state\'s reading of the relevant Rules.

Three operational practices reduce exposure:

• Read each applicable opinion. Functional convergence does not mean texts are identical. The deltas are real.
• Comply with the strictest. Where opinions diverge, the strictest applicable standard is the one to satisfy.
• Document the standard. A multi-state firm\'s AI policy should reference each applicable state\'s opinion and identify the controlling provision when conflicts arise.

For practices spanning a small number of states, the work is bounded. For practices spanning many, the work is non-trivial; consider it part of the firm\'s ongoing compliance overhead.

Citations and further reading.

Federal:

• ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024). IXSOR reading.
• ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence.

States with adopted opinions or confirmed formal guidance:

• State Bar of California (Nov. 2023, Practical Guidance).
• The Florida Bar (Op. 24-1, Jan. 2024).
• New York State Bar Association (Task Force Report, Apr. 2024).
• North Carolina State Bar (2024 FEO 1, Nov. 2024). IXSOR reading.
• D.C. Bar (Op. 388, 2024).
• The Mississippi Bar (AI Practical Guide, 2025).

Cross-cutting:

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Cornell LII).
• Mata v. Avianca, Three Years On (post-Mata sanctions caselaw, IXSOR survey).

This article is general analysis of state-bar guidance. It is not legal advice. State opinions are amended and supplemented over time; the controlling text is the opinion as published by the relevant bar at the time of the attorney\'s use. Engage qualified counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction for advice on a specific matter.

About the author.

Dan Hughes is the founder of IXSOR. Ex-BBC. Ex-Apple. Lifelong technologist. And most importantly: not an attorney. He writes about legal AI from the operational and infrastructure side, where the rules meet the machines. Reach: [email protected].