As of 2026-09-04, 65 official documents govern AI use by lawyers, judges or litigants in the US state courts. 19 require disclosure or certification of AI use, 54 impose an explicit verification duty, and 5 prohibit some use outright. The incident tracker records 40 incidents in this jurisdiction.
Connecticut Judicial BranchConnecticut
The committee established by the Connecticut Judicial Branch to examine AI in the legal system closed with a final report on 10 August 2026. It records that Practice Book section 4-9 and related amendments discharged the rules charge, sets eight guiding principles for judicial AI use, and describes the Branch's permanent AI governance structure.
Report · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Competence
2026-08-10In force
Connecticut Judicial BranchConnecticut
A statewide Connecticut court rule effective 23 June 2026 on publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. Anyone who uses generative AI to create or edit a filed document must independently verify every citation, authority and item of evidence, and the filer's signature certifies diligent compliance. Sanctions include nonsuit or default. It is among the first statewide binding verification rules.
Court rule · Verification duty · Certification
2026-06-23In force
RI Supreme CourtRhode Island
By order of 17 June 2026 the Rhode Island Supreme Court amended Article V, Rule 1.1 Comment [6] so that competence expressly includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of developing technology, and adopted advisory interim generative-AI guidelines for Rhode Island lawyers and for judicial officers. The guidelines do not carry the force of law.
Court rule · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Supervision · Client consent
2026-06-17In force
Ohio Board of Professional ConductOhio
Nonbinding Board staff guidance applying the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct to AI. It covers competence, confidentiality, client communication, independent professional judgment, fees, candor to the tribunal and hallucinated citations, supervision of staff and vendors, and a substantial judicial section on competence, independent decision-making, ex parte risk and confidentiality.
Guidance · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision
2026-06-02In force
NY Unified Court SystemNew York
Part 161 applies to all New York Unified Court System courts in civil and criminal cases. Using an AI tool to prepare a paper is permitted and need not be disclosed, but the attorney or party must independently ensure it contains no fabricated cases, statutes or other material; signing certifies that review, and failure may draw sanctions.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty · Permissive
2026-06-01In force
Florida Supreme CourtFlorida
Florida moved from bar guidance to a binding filing rule. The Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) on 28 May 2026 to address generative AI tools in the representations a signer makes when filing a document, alongside conforming amendments to rules 2.505, 2.520 and 2.525.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
2026-05-28In force
Alabama State BarAlabama
The Alabama State Bar's first formal opinion on AI. It applies ARPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 to generative and agentic AI, requires independent verification of AI citations before filing, prefers enterprise or closed AI systems, bars billing for AI time savings, and supplies a compliance checklist.
Ethics opinion · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Competence · Supervision · Client consent
2026-05-01In force
State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia
Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would write AI duties directly into the rules: verification of cited authorities, firm-level AI governance policies under Rule 5.1, and instruction of nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.3. Public comment closed 4 May 2026 and the Board of Trustees considered them in mid May 2026. Adoption requires the California Supreme Court.
Consultation · Verification duty · Supervision · Competence · Confidentiality
2026-03-13Proposed
Oklahoma Court of Criminal AppealsOklahoma
Rule 1.17 requires that where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure every AI-produced or AI-modified portion has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. Non-compliance may lead to waiver, striking of the document, or contempt.
Court rule · Verification duty · Certification
2026-02-18In force
Indiana Supreme Court OJAIndiana
Indiana's judiciary is governing AI administratively rather than by rule. An AI Governance Committee was formed in autumn 2024 and an AI policy toolkit for trial courts was released in February 2026; attorney-facing guidance is still pending. Contents were not verified in this run.
Policy · Risk classification · Supervision
2026-02-17In force
Colorado Supreme CourtColorado
Colorado became the first US jurisdiction to amend its lawyer ethics rules specifically for AI. Scope [20A] confirms technology does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities and that misuse is disciplinable; Comment [9] to Rule 1.1 enumerates the rules AI implicates and preserves the duty of independent judgment.
Court rule · Competence · Supervision · Confidentiality
2026-01-08In force
Arizona Supreme CourtArizona
Arizona added an explicit technology-competence duty to its Code of Judicial Conduct. Comment 1 to Rule 2.5 now requires judges to have the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary to perform judicial responsibilities, including use and knowledge of the benefits and risks of relevant technology.
Court rule · Competence
2026-01-01In force
FL 17th Judicial CircuitFlorida
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida issued an administrative order in January 2026 on the use of artificial intelligence in court filings. Several other Florida circuits have parallel orders. The operative requirements were not read in this run and must be confirmed.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2026-01-01In force
MT 13th Judicial District CourtMontana
Local Rule 35 of Montana's Thirteenth Judicial District Court (Yellowstone County) requires an attorney or self-represented party who used generative AI in preparing any document filed with the court to identify the type of AI used and to certify that every citation to law or to the record has been verified as accurate.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-01-01In force
NYC BarNew York
Formal Opinion 2025-6 addresses AI note-takers and transcription tools used in client communications. Clients must be notified and consent obtained whenever an AI-empowered system records their calls; lawyers must independently review AI transcripts and summaries, understand the tools' technical limits under Rule 1.1, and manage privilege and discovery risks in stored records.
Ethics opinion · Client consent · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Competence · Supervision
2025-12-22In force
Hawaii Supreme CourtHawaii
Hawaii's judiciary studied AI for eighteen months and concluded HRCP Rule 11 already covers AI abuse, while recommending the Supreme Court consider a federal-style AI disclosure declaration for state-court filings. The committee separately adopted internal guardrails for judiciary use of AI tools.
Report · Disclosure · Verification duty
2025-12-16Proposed
NY UCS AI Advisory CommitteeNew York
The December 2025 annual report of the New York court system's Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts, containing principles-based ethical considerations and recommendations for judges and judicial staff using AI. It supplements the October 2025 interim policy, addressing impartiality, confidentiality, competence and the need for human judgment in every judicial decision.
Report · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2025-12-01In force
Massachusetts SJCMassachusetts
Massachusetts' first judicial AI instrument. The SJC's interim guidelines let court personnel use generative AI for administrative work using only public information, bar tools that retain or train on entered information, and deliberately leave attorney conduct untouched pending possible later rules.
Guidance · Prohibition · Confidentiality
2025-12-01In force
Virginia State BarVirginia
LEO 1901 addresses how Virginia lawyers may bill for work assisted by generative AI. It concludes that value-based and flat fees may reflect efficiency gains, the skill of effectively incorporating the technology, and the value of the output, and remain reasonable under Rule 1.5(a); a lawyer need not reduce a flat or value-based fee solely because AI accelerated the work.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Disclosure
2025-11-24In force
MT 4th Judicial District CourtMontana
Rule 3.G of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court's Rules of Practice requires any party who used generative AI in preparing a filed document to disclose that use, name the tool, explain how it was used, and certify that AI-assisted portions have been checked for accuracy. A filing without the certification certifies that no AI was used.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-31In force
Appellate Court of MarylandMaryland
Maryland's leading AI-hallucination decision. The Appellate Court of Maryland published Mezu as a warning to the bar, holding that failing to read AI-generated citations before filing can produce briefs citing multiple fictitious cases, and referred the signing attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Delegation to a law clerk was no defence.
Judgment (guidance) · Verification duty · Supervision
2025-10-29In force
Utah Judicial CouncilUtah
From 27 October 2025 the Utah Judicial Council operates an allow-list policy for generative AI in court-related work and on court-owned devices. Eight named tools are expressly permitted and any AI tool not expressly permitted is prohibited, giving Utah one of the most restrictive US state judiciary AI postures.
Policy · Prohibition · Permissive · Confidentiality
2025-10-27In force
Illinois ARDCIllinois
The Illinois ARDC's practical companion to the Supreme Court's AI Policy. It is expressly nonbinding and subordinate to the Policy, and supplies an explanation of generative AI, a tool-selection and documentation framework, and a Practice Resource Kit with sample notices, firm policies, a client consent form and a terms-of-use checklist.
Guidance · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision · Client consent
2025-10-24In force
NY Unified Court SystemNew York
An interim policy adopted by the New York State Unified Court System on 10 October 2025 for judges and non-judicial employees. It permits only approved generative AI tools, requires training, forbids entering confidential or non-public information into public tools, and requires that all output be reviewed and verified by the human user, who remains accountable for the result.
Policy · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2025-10-10In force
Louisiana Technology CommissionLouisiana
The Louisiana Supreme Court's Technology Commission issued advisory generative-AI guidelines in October 2025, chiefly for judges but addressing counsel. They call for active review and verification of AI output analogous to supervising a junior associate and warn against free consumer AI tools in favour of enterprise systems with security protocols.
Guidance · Verification duty · Supervision · Confidentiality
2025-10-01In force
Idaho OAHIdaho
Idaho's administrative judiciary adopted a near-total ban on adjudicative AI use. ALJs may not use AI to draft orders or decisions, to research law, or to summarise evidence and party submissions; limited transcript use is allowed; and ALJs may require parties to certify that AI-drafted content was checked by a human.
Guidance · Prohibition · Disclosure · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2025-09-24In force
Judicial Council of CaliforniaCalifornia
Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court, effective 1 September 2025, requires every California court that permits generative AI use by judicial officers or staff to adopt a use policy by 15 December 2025. Policies must address confidentiality, bias, human review of output, and disclosure when public-facing content is fully AI-generated. Standard 10.80 offers a model policy.
Court rule · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Disclosure · Record-keeping
2025-09-01In force
Louisiana LegislatureLouisiana
Louisiana enacted a civil-procedure duty to police AI-falsified evidence. Counsel must exercise reasonable diligence to verify exhibit authenticity, disclose known falsification of their own exhibits including AI generation or alteration, and raise reasonable suspicion about an opponent's exhibits at the pretrial stage, on pain of contempt and discipline.
Statute · Verification duty · Disclosure · Certification
2025-08-01In force
Judicial Council of GeorgiaGeorgia
Georgia's judicial branch response to generative AI. The Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts, established August 2024 under Justice Andrew Pinson, submitted its report on 3 July 2025 focused on court rules and procedures; no implementing Supreme Court order has been verified as of September 2026.
Report · Risk classification · Verification duty
2025-07-03In force
State Bar of MichiganMichigan
Michigan's bar-level strategic report on AI, released 11 June 2025. It reaffirms MRPC 1.1 competence as the operative standard, examines AI and the unauthorised practice of law under MCL 600.916, and makes six institutional recommendations on member education, staff development and standing committee oversight. It is a living document, not an ethics opinion.
Report · Competence
2025-06-11In force
Arkansas Supreme CourtArkansas
Arkansas's court-side AI order. It warns that disclosing confidential or sealed client or case information to a generative AI model may breach Administrative Order No. 19, the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and bars court personnel from exposing CourtConnect data to external generative AI tools without Automation Committee approval.
Standing order · Confidentiality · Prohibition
2025-06-05In force
Arkansas Supreme CourtArkansas
Arkansas wrote AI supervision into its conduct rules rather than issuing a bar opinion. Amended Rule 5.3 makes the supervising attorney fully responsible for AI-generated work product, and the amended Preamble confirms AI use remains subject to all existing rules.
Court rule · Supervision · Verification duty
2025-06-05In force
MSBAMaryland
Maryland's only bar-level AI guidance is an MSBA task force advisory from May 2025. It surveys competence, confidentiality, verification and supervision under the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct but is not a numbered ethics opinion and was not readable in this research run.
Guidance · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Supervision
2025-05-01In force
Alaska Bar AssociationAlaska
Alaska's generative-AI ethics opinion. Lawyers may use generative AI but must understand it, review all output, protect client confidences through closed systems or anonymisation, disclose the basis of any AI charge within a reasonable time of engagement, avoid billing for time not worked, and supervise staff using AI.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision
2025-04-23In force
State Bar of MichiganMichigan
Michigan's operative AI guidance is a set of State Bar FAQs rather than a formal RI opinion. They impose verification, client-consent, vendor-security, billing and supervision duties under the MRPC, and adopt Ethics Opinion RI-381 as the vendor due-diligence standard for AI providers.
Guidance · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision · Competence
2025-02-11In force
Oregon State BarOregon
Formal Opinion 2025-205 from the Oregon State Bar, issued February 2025, applies the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct to lawyers' use of AI tools. Lawyers must understand the tool they use, verify its output before relying on it, protect client confidentiality when entering information, and supervise nonlawyer and vendor use. A 2026 companion opinion addresses chatbots and AI agents.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Supervision
2025-02-01In force
State Bar of TexasTexas
Opinion 705 from the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas, issued February 2025, addresses lawyers' use of generative AI under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must understand the tools they use, protect client confidentiality, verify all output before reliance, supervise staff, and charge only for time actually spent.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision
2025-02-01In force
Arizona Supreme CourtArizona
Section 1-509 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, adopted by the Supreme Court of Arizona on 30 October 2024 and amended 29 January 2025, governs how the state judicial branch uses generative AI and large language models. It sets approval, confidentiality, verification and accountability requirements for judges and court employees rather than for litigants.
Court rule · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2025-01-29In force
Colorado Court of AppealsColorado
The Colorado Court of Appeals published Al-Hamim to address AI hallucinations in appellate briefing. It held that fictitious AI-generated citations violate C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B), exercised discretion not to sanction the self-represented appellant, and warned that future AI-hallucinated filings may result in sanctions.
Judgment (guidance) · Verification duty
2024-12-26In force
Illinois Supreme CourtIllinois
A statewide policy from the Supreme Court of Illinois, effective 1 January 2025, authorising the use of AI by litigants, lawyers, judges and court staff. It deliberately does not require disclosure of AI use in pleadings, relying on existing rules of professional conduct and civil procedure to police accuracy, and warns that AI must not compromise due process or privacy.
Policy · Permissive · Verification duty
2024-12-18In force
Arizona AI Steering CommitteeArizona
Supreme Court-sponsored, non-binding Arizona guidance on generative AI for lawyers and judges. It requires users to understand the technology, check all output for accuracy rather than deferring to AI judgment, avoid entering confidential information when in doubt, refrain from billing time saved by AI, and tell prospective clients when they are dealing with an AI intake program.
Guidance · Verification duty · Competence · Confidentiality · Disclosure
2024-11-14In force
Mississippi BarMississippi
Mississippi's generative-AI ethics opinion is unusually specific about client disclosure. Routine AI use needs no disclosure, but three circumstances trigger mandatory disclosure and informed consent, and the opinion imposes an affirmative, risk-calibrated verification duty plus written agreement before AI costs are billed.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision
2024-11-14In force
North Carolina State BarNorth Carolina
North Carolina State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, adopted 1 November 2024, permits lawyers in North Carolina to use AI in their practice while applying the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must be competent in the tools, verify output, protect confidential information, supervise staff, and are encouraged to disclose substantive AI use to clients.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Disclosure · Supervision
2024-11-01In force
Delaware Supreme CourtDelaware
An interim policy adopted by the Supreme Court of Delaware on 21 October 2024 governing how judges and court personnel across the Delaware judiciary may use generative AI. Only approved tools may be used, users must complete training, decision-making cannot be delegated to AI, and users remain responsible for verifying and protecting the confidentiality of any output.
Policy · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2024-10-21In force
IL 22nd Judicial CircuitIllinois
The 22nd Judicial Circuit of Illinois adopted a circuit-level AI policy and plan by administrative order in October 2024, ahead of and going beyond the Illinois Supreme Court's statewide policy. Its operative terms were not read in this research run and must be confirmed.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2024-10-01In force
State Bar of New MexicoNew Mexico
Formal Opinion 2024-004 answers yes, qualified, to whether New Mexico lawyers may use generative AI. It implicates Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104, 16-105, 16-106, 16-109, 16-303, 16-501, 16-503 and 16-804(C) NMRA, and requires competence, independent verification of output, confidentiality safeguards, conflicts checking and reasonable fees. The opinion is advisory and not binding on tribunals.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision
2024-09-24In force
Minnesota OLPRMinnesota
Minnesota's disciplinary regulator issued informal generative-AI guidance through an article by the OLPR Director in September 2024. It is the closest thing Minnesota has to an ethics opinion and is reported to make documented informed consent for AI use of client data an affirmative Rule 1.6 obligation.
Guidance · Confidentiality · Client consent · Verification duty · Competence
2024-09-01In force
NYC BarNew York
Formal Opinion 2024-5 from the New York City Bar Association, issued 7 August 2024, applies the New York Rules of Professional Conduct to lawyers' use of generative AI. Lawyers must understand the tools they use, verify all output, protect confidential client information from disclosure to public tools, supervise staff use, and consider whether client disclosure is warranted.
Ethics opinion · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Supervision · Competence
2024-08-07In force
Minnesota State Bar AssociationMinnesota
Minnesota's bar produced a working-group report rather than an ethics opinion. It recommends an AI regulatory sandbox for access-to-justice LLM tools and sets out guidance on lawyer use of generative AI under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Text not verified in this run.
Report · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2024-07-01In force
MO 7th Judicial CircuitMissouri
Missouri has no statewide AI filing rule, so several circuits have made their own. Clay County's Local Rule 3.3.1 requires disclosure of artificial intelligence use in filings from July 2024. Its operative wording was not read in this research run and must be confirmed.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification
2024-07-01In force
Shawnee County District CourtKansas
Shawnee County District Court requires both verification and disclosure. Any filer who used generative AI for any portion of a pleading must check the output for accuracy against print reporters or traditional databases and must state on the first page, in writing, that the document contains AI-generated content, with a certification of the accuracy check. Sanctions may follow a violation.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-06-14In force
WV Lawyer Disciplinary BoardWest Virginia
LEI 24-01 holds that nothing in the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct per se prohibits AI use in law practice. It distinguishes non-generative from generative AI, maps the main legal use cases, and requires lawyers to exercise independent judgment, communicate with clients, maintain confidentiality, keep fees reasonable, comply with advertising rules and supervise AI-assisted work.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Supervision
2024-06-14In force
PBA and Philadelphia BarPennsylvania
A joint opinion of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia bar ethics committees concluding that, with appropriate safeguards, lawyers may use AI consistently with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. It sets out twelve best practices spanning truthfulness, citation verification, competence, confidentiality, conflicts, client communication, bias, misuse, billing, professional judgment and transparency.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision
2024-05-22In force
NH Bar AssociationNew Hampshire
A practical ethics article from the New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee applying NH RPC 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1 to generative AI. It stresses technology competence, review of vendor privacy policies before entering client data, and verification of AI output, citing Mata v. Avianca. It is guidance rather than a formal opinion.
Guidance · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty
2024-05-15In force
Missouri OLECMissouri
Missouri's ethics counsel answered a firm asking how to build a generative-AI policy. The opinion walks through competence and training, platform assessment and confidentiality safeguards, obedience to court AI rules, professional independence, verification of AI output as nonlawyer work, supervision, fee reasonableness and candour toward the tribunal.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision
2024-04-25In force
D.C. BarDistrict of Columbia
The D.C. Bar's generative-AI opinion. Lawyers must understand that GAI generates rather than retrieves, must not rely blindly on output, must check whether a product retains inputs or feeds them to other users before entering client confidences, may bill only time actually spent, and must supervise AI use by others under Rules 5.1 and 5.3.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Client consent · Supervision
2024-04-01In force
Kentucky Bar AssociationKentucky
Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457, issued 15 March 2024, addresses generative AI under the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers may use AI but must be competent in the technology, verify its output, protect client confidences, and supervise staff. There is no mandatory duty to disclose AI use to clients unless the client asks or the use is material.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision
2024-03-15In force
Connecticut Judicial BranchConnecticut
An internal governance framework adopted by the Connecticut Judicial Branch on 1 February 2024 for how the branch itself procures, deploys and monitors AI systems. It sets principles of accountability, transparency, fairness and security for court technology, requires risk assessment before deployment, and keeps human decision-makers responsible. It does not regulate filings by lawyers or litigants.
Policy · Risk classification · Record-keeping · Competence
2024-02-01In force
New Jersey Supreme CourtNew Jersey
Preliminary guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on 24 January 2024 by Notice to the Bar. Lawyers in New Jersey may use AI, and there is no blanket duty to disclose that use, but the existing Rules of Professional Conduct on competence, candor, confidentiality, supervision and communication apply in full and require verification of AI output.
Guidance · Permissive · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Competence
2024-01-24In force
Louisiana Supreme CourtLouisiana
The Louisiana Supreme Court chose not to make an AI rule. Its January 2024 letter to the State Bar states existing ethical and professional rules are broad enough for AI, lists the conduct rules and Code of Civil Procedure articles that apply, confirms judges' parallel responsibilities, and notes the Court's Technology Commission and Rules Committee will monitor developments.
Guidance · Competence · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2024-01-22In force
Florida BarFlorida
Ethics Opinion 24-1, issued by the Florida Bar on 19 January 2024, permits Florida lawyers to use generative AI under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Lawyers must obtain informed client consent before disclosing confidential information to a third-party AI tool, must verify output, must supervise the tool like nonlawyer staff, and may not charge for AI time savings.
Ethics opinion · Client consent · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision · Competence
2024-01-19In force
Colorado OPDJColorado
Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Zachariah Crabill for one year and one day, with ninety days served, after he filed ChatGPT-generated citations without reading them, failed to correct the record and blamed a legal intern. Violations found of Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c).
Judgment (guidance) · Verification duty · Competence
2023-11-22In force
State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia
Practical guidance approved by the State Bar of California on 16 November 2023, the first state bar guidance on generative AI in the United States. California lawyers must not enter confidential client information into tools without adequate protections, must review and verify all output, should consider disclosing AI use to clients, and may not bill for time not spent.
Guidance · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Disclosure · Competence · Supervision
2023-11-16In force
State Bar of MichiganMichigan
One of the earliest US judicial ethics opinions on AI. JI-155 treats technology competence as an ethical duty, requires judges to assess algorithmic bias before relying on AI, to document AI use in their reasoning on the record, and to keep decision-making human, with due-process concerns where AI is opaque.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Supervision · Disclosure
2023-10-27In force
WV Judicial Investigation CommissionWest Virginia
Answering an inquiry about judges' use of AI, the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission applied Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4(B), 2.5(A) and 2.7 and concluded that a judge may use AI for research but not to decide a case's outcome, and that drafting opinions or orders with AI demands extreme caution.
Ethics opinion · Prohibition · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Competence
2023-10-13In force
Descriptive reference only: this page records what each rule requires. Missing a document? Tell us.