As of 2026-10-07, 145 official documents govern AI use by lawyers, judges or litigants in the US state courts. 81 require disclosure or certification of AI use, 101 impose an explicit verification duty, and 14 prohibit some use outright. The incident tracker records 54 incidents in this jurisdiction.
California LegislatureCalifornia
California statute approved 30 September 2026 that bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. Attorneys must keep nonpublic information out of unrestricted AI systems, verify outputs including every citation, and disclose AI use to the court. Arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to AI. It takes effect 1 January 2027.
Statute · Prohibition · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Disclosure
2026-09-30Enacted, not commenced
Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Cleary)Illinois
Judge Cleary’s Cook County Law Division jury trial standing order requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used. The party must also state that the existence and accuracy of any authority cited has been verified.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Golden)Illinois
Judge Golden’s Cook County Law Division standing order for Courtroom 2309 requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submission that AI was used. The party must also state that cited authority has been verified for existence and accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division (Judge Horan)Illinois
Judge Horan’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 9 standing order, effective April 5, 2024, requires disclosure in the caption when large language model artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is used to prepare briefs or other submissions. The order states that failure to disclose may result in sanctions.
Standing order · Disclosure
2026-09-06In force
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Seaton)Illinois
Judge Seaton’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 60 standing order, effective February 19, 2025, authorizes AI use before the court without requiring disclosure in filings. Attorneys, self-represented litigants, and parties must keep any AI use within legal and ethical standards and remain subject to sanctions for unfounded submissions.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-09-06In force
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Sullivan)Illinois
Judge Sullivan’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 60 standing order, effective September 3, 2024, requires a statement in any filed document created in any part with AI assistance. The disclosure requirement covers research, writing, editing, and analysis of an opposition document in civil matters before that calendar.
Standing order · Disclosure
2026-09-06Superseded
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Wright)Illinois
Judge Wright’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 64 standing order, effective May 31, 2024, requires an in-document statement when a filed document is created in any part with AI assistance. The requirement covers AI use for research, writing, editing, and analysis of an opposition document.
Standing order · Disclosure
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Matrimonial Division (Judge Jr.)New York
Justice Ronald Castorina Jr.’s Part 44 rules, effective July 1, 2026, adopt a discretionary Part 161 motion-submission certification. Every motion submission must state whether generative AI drafted listed documents; if so, all generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved, with program and portions identified.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term (Judge Crawford)New York
Justice Ashlee Crawford’s individual part rules, effective April 8, 2026, prohibit recording or photographing court proceedings, including through artificial intelligence assistants, bots, or smart glasses. The rules also acknowledge AI use in litigation and remind court users of ethical duties requiring accuracy and authenticity in submissions.
Standing order · Prohibition
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term (Judge Frank)New York
Justice Lyle E. Frank’s Part 11 civil rules require every motion submission to include a certification stating whether generative AI drafted any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law. If used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved, and the program, affected documents, and drafted parts must be identified.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term (Judge King)New York
Justice Kathy J. King’s Part 6 civil term rules require any party using a generative AI tool in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose AI use, disclose the specific tool, identify the portion drafted by AI, and include a certification that the AI work product was diligently reviewed by a human for accuracy and applicability.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, Queens County, Civil Term (Judge Lancman)New York
Justice Mojgan C. Lancman’s Part 20 rules require any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool. The filer must certify checking AI-drafted content for accuracy, legal authority, citations, and facts.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County (Judge Waterman-Marshall)New York
Justice Kathleen Waterman-Marshall’s IAS Part 31 rules require all motion submissions to include a certification stating whether generative AI was used to draft affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda. If used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed and approved, and the program, documents, and drafted parts identified.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court / County Court (Judge Schopf)New York
Judge Jonathan G. Schopf’s Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court and County Court local rules, effective January 1, 2025, require attorneys, witnesses, or parties to disclose AI-assisted technology used in creating or editing evidence. The written certification must identify the AI type, software or program, role, and final review and approval.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
Williams County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile DivisionOhio
Williams County Juvenile Local Rule 1.4, effective December 1, 2023, acknowledges that attorneys and parties may use AI in presenting information, exhibits, and pleadings to the juvenile court. It requires a NOTICE disclosure stating how AI was used and the process used to check the accuracy of the provided information.
Court rule · Disclosure
2026-09-06In force
Courts of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams CountiesOhio
Probate Local Rule 80, effective December 1, 2023, applies in the Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams County Probate Divisions. It allows attorneys and parties to use AI for information, exhibits, pleadings, and case information, but requires a NOTICE disclosure explaining how AI was used and how accuracy was checked.
Court rule · Disclosure
2026-09-06In force
Oregon Court of AppealsOregon
The Oregon Court of Appeals notice warns that fabricated authority produced by generative AI can result in striking, monetary sanctions, attorney fees, or dismissal. Anyone using generative AI to prepare filing content must verify cases, quotations, and paraphrased propositions before filing.
Guidance · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Tarrant County Criminal CourtsTexas
Tarrant County Criminal Local Rule 5.33 defines AI broadly and requires every motion and brief to include a certification saying whether AI was used. If AI was used, the filer must certify human verification of AI-created content, and the court may request the specific AI-created parts and AI name.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-08-27In force
Panola County Court at Law and County Court (Judge McLane)Texas
The Panola County courts’ standing order broadly regulates AI use in every case. It forbids reliance on unreviewed AI legal research, prohibits sensitive or confidential information from being entered into AI tools, prohibits AI-created or altered evidence, and requires each attorney or self-represented litigant to file a verification acknowledging the order.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2026-08-21In force
Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Judge Knill)California
Judge Kimberly A. Knill’s Orange County Superior Court Department C31 procedures include a standing order on generative AI. AI use is not prohibited, but signers of filings containing AI-generated content certify personal verification, must protect confidentiality, and may face sanctions or discipline for failure to verify.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-08-10In force
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
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Emadi)Georgia
Judge Emadi of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 29, 2026 standing order requires a tool-identifying certification under penalty of perjury and verification of every legal, statutory, and record citation.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-29In force
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Ellerbe)Georgia
Judge Ellerbe of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se parties to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings and submissions. The filed July 22, 2026 order requires a tool-identifying disclosure and certification that the filer independently reviewed accuracy and verified every citation.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-22In force
394th Judicial District Court of Texas (Judge Kimball)Texas
The updated 394th Judicial District standing order applies to cases in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. AI users must submit a certification before using AI-generated information in court, attesting that AI-created legal content was verified through traditional sources by a human or Texas attorney.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-22In force
Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Judicial BranchIowa
The Iowa Supreme Court order filed July 21, 2026, adopts Chapter 27 governing judicial use of AI tools effective January 1, 2027. It covers judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, requires independent decision-making and verification of factual or legal sources, requires assistant disclosure to the judicial officer, and restricts case-information use to approved tools.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-21In force
Bexar County Civil District CourtsTexas
Bexar County Civil District Courts’ local rules require all pleadings to include an approved AI certification. The certificate attests that drafted language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analyses produced by generative AI will be verified before submission through traditional legal sources.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-01In force
Texas Business CourtTexas
Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c), as posted through TOPICs, expressly says use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited. It imposes no separate disclosure or certificate, but it states that the filing attorney or party remains independently responsible for accuracy and existing legal and ethical duties.
Court rule · Permissive
2026-07-01In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term (Judge Ramseur)New York
Justice Dakota D. Ramseur’s Part 34 practices and procedures, revised June 30, 2026, require all motion submissions to include a certification stating whether generative AI was used in drafting affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda of law and, if used, identifying the program, documents, and parts drafted after attorney or self-represented-party review.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-06-30In 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
Connecticut Superior CourtConnecticut
The Connecticut Superior Court’s June 23, 2026 Practice Book amendments add Section 4-9 on generative AI compliance and revise Section 4-2. Anyone using generative AI to create or edit a court-filed document must independently verify all AI-produced citations, legal authorities, or evidence, and filing represents diligent compliance.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
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
New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County (Judge Norris)New York
Justice Michael J. Norris’s Part 3 rules, as of June 5, 2026, use the Part 161 model-rule language requiring attorney or party users of AI tools in court papers to carefully review and independently ensure no fabricated or fictitious content. The rules also bar recording or transcribing phone or Teams proceedings using AI software or tools.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty · Prohibition
2026-06-05In force
District Courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties (Judge Garza)Texas
This multi-county district-court order covers Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio, and Victoria Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research, drafting, or analysis must submit a certification that AI-created legal content was verified by a human using traditional legal sources.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-06-04In 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 · Permissive · Verification duty
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
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Judge Orshan)Florida
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida requires attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose generative AI use when it drafts or generates content used in court filings or records. Effective May 19, 2026, the required certification covers citations, record citations, drafted language, facts, and legal analysis.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-05-19In force
State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia
California's State Bar 2026 Practical Guidance replaces its November 2023 generative-AI guidance and adds agentic-AI risks. California lawyers remain responsible for professional judgment, must understand the tool and its autonomy, protect confidential information, review, verify and correct output, supervise staff and vendors, consider client disclosure, and bill only reasonable AI-related time and costs.
Guidance · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Disclosure · Competence · Supervision
2026-05-18In force
25th and 2nd 25th District Courts of Texas (Judge Crawford)Texas
The 25th and 2nd 25th District Courts’ generative-AI order requires AI users to include a bold pleading verification listing programs used and describing the use for work product, research, or drafting. It also imposes confidentiality protections and prohibits AI-created evidence, AI-reliant interpreters, and AI-reliant expert opinions.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-05-12In force
Collin County District Courts (Judge Judges)Texas
Collin County District Courts’ 2026 local rules include a short AI-in-filings rule. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must ensure that AI-generated information used in a court submission or proceeding is accurate and correctly portrayed to the court.
Court rule · Permissive
2026-05-06In 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
Williamson County District Courts and County Courts at LawTexas
Williamson County local rules contain a dedicated AI-in-filings section. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must ensure AI-generated information is accurate and must attach a certificate to any filing where AI-generated information is used. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-04-14In force
New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term (Judge Bannon)New York
Justice Nancy M. Bannon’s Part 61 rules, last updated April 2026, require certifications for all motion, hearing, trial, and permitted letter submissions stating whether generative AI was used. If used, the certification must identify the program, documents, and portions drafted, and remote appearances may not use any AI program.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Prohibition
2026-04-01In force
284th District Court of Montgomery County (Judge Bays)Texas
Judge Bays’s 284th District Court order mirrors the Montgomery County generative-AI verification format. Pleadings using generative AI must include a bold verification listing the AI program and use, certifying accuracy and confidentiality, and confirming no AI-created, edited, enhanced, or altered evidence is attached.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-04-01In force
457th District Court of Montgomery County (Judge Santini)Texas
Judge Santini’s 457th District Court order requires any attorney or self-represented litigant using generative AI in work product, research, or drafting to include a bold verification in pleadings. The order also prohibits sensitive inputs, AI-created or altered evidence, AI-reliant interpreters, and AI-reliant expert methodology.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-04-01In force
Oklahoma Supreme CourtOklahoma
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s 2026 OK 19 order is a statewide policy statement on generative AI. It expects increasing AI use, does not discourage compliant use, expressly states that disclosure of AI assistance is not required in legal filings, and makes all filers responsible for content and accuracy.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-03-23In force
New Mexico Supreme Court (Judge Thomson)New Mexico
Chief Justice Thomson’s memorandum gives official direction to New Mexico justices, judges, and judicial branch employees regarding third-party AI note-taking applications. It prohibits those applications during all in-person and virtual meetings, authorizes removal of participants using them, and warns of disciplinary action.
Policy · Prohibition
2026-03-16In 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
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Whitaker)Georgia
Judge Whitaker of Fulton County Superior Court requires AI disclosure and certification for written filings, and imposes review duties for AI-assisted oral submissions. The February 20, 2026 order applies in criminal and civil dockets to attorneys and self-represented litigants. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-02-20In force
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Edwards)Georgia
Judge Edwards of Fulton County Superior Court includes an AI-use section in her 2026 civil standing case management order. The February 19, 2026 order tells parties to note AI use at the end of filings and warns of sanctions or referrals for hallucinated or fictitious citations.
Standing order · Disclosure
2026-02-19In force
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
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Judge Chase)Florida
The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida required attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose generative AI use on filings and certify independent accuracy review. Administrative Order 26-10 took effect February 13, 2026, but was rescinded by Administrative Order 26-24 on June 1, 2026.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-02-13Withdrawn
90th Judicial District Court of Texas (Judge Gregory)Texas
The 90th Judicial District standing order applies to all pending and future cases in Young and Stephens Counties. It requires a certificate in each pleading generated with AI, certifying traditional-source verification of AI-created content, and separately prohibits AI recording, listening, or transcription in courtrooms and court offices.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Prohibition
2026-02-10In force
Texas Business Court, First Division (Judge Whitehill)Texas
Judge Whitehill’s Texas Business Court Division 1B guidelines include a specific AI notetaker rule. The guidelines do not regulate AI drafting of filings, but they prohibit AI notetakers from joining virtual conferences, functioning as a judge-specific courtroom or proceeding access rule.
Practice direction / note · Prohibition
2026-02-05In force
Oregon Circuit Court for Jackson CountyOregon
The Oregon Judicial Department’s Jackson County public guide explains that generative AI may help with drafts, forms, and court papers but must be used carefully. It advises users to confirm court permission, double-check AI output and sources, consult an attorney, and avoid sharing personal information.
Guidance · Permissive
2026-02-01In force
Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at LawTexas
Lubbock County’s standing order regarding children, property, and conduct of parties includes an AI liability provision. It does not require disclosure or certification, but it warns attorneys and self-represented litigants that they remain responsible for filing accuracy and may be sanctioned for AI-generated false citations or facts.
Standing order · Competence
2026-01-22In force
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Judge Orshan)Florida
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida prohibits court personnel from using non-approved generative AI platforms for court business, effective January 15, 2026. Approved enterprise tools may be used through authorized court systems if users follow technology and security policies and remain responsible for work product.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-01-15In 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
Superseded. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit issued this administrative order in January 2026 on AI in court filings, with parallel orders in other circuits. The Supreme Court of Florida's 28 May 2026 amendment to Rule 2.515 was adopted, per its commentary, as a statewide replacement for those orders. The operative terms were never read.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2026-01-01Superseded
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
New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term (Judge Maslow)New York
Justice Aaron D. Maslow’s Kings County Part 2 rules require every motion submission to certify whether generative AI was used in drafting affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda of law. If used, the certification must identify the program, documents, and drafted parts after review of generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-01-01In force
Utah Judicial CouncilUtah
The Utah Mediation Best Practice Guide’s January 2026 generative AI update gives official court-connected guidance for mediators. It permits AI-generated content as assistance only, emphasizes confidentiality and secure systems, allows disclosure in mediation agreements, recommends AI competence, and calls for critical review of AI content.
Practice direction / note · Permissive
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
Superior Court of Cabarrus County, North Carolina (Judge McGee)North Carolina
The Cabarrus County Superior Court revised its generative AI administrative order on December 8, 2025. The order permits AI-assisted advocacy without disclosure when reviewed and adopted, but requires disclosure when AI generates, alters, enhances, or analyzes evidence and addresses deepfakes, confidentiality, validation, and sanctions.
Standing order · Disclosure
2025-12-08In force
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
Denton County Probate Courts (Judge Judges)Texas
The Denton County Probate Courts standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants to sign and submit an AI certification form in probate cases. The form includes an attestation that any information created or contributed by generative AI was independently verified through traditional legal sources by a human being.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
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
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Leftridge)Georgia
Judge Leftridge of Fulton County Superior Court requires counsel and pro se parties to disclose AI use in documents submitted to the court. The November 17, 2025 standing order requires a tool-identifying certification under penalty of perjury, independent review, and a cited-exhibit possession certification.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-11-17In 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
Denton County District Courts (Judge Judges)Texas
The Denton County District Courts standing order applies to all pending and future district-court cases. It requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research, drafting, or analysis to submit a certification form stating that AI-created legal content was independently verified through traditional legal sources by a human being.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-16In 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
Unified Judicial System of PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved an interim GenAI policy on September 9, 2025, effective December 8, 2025, for judicial officers and Unified Judicial System personnel. Personnel may use approved GenAI for listed work purposes, must understand tool limits, remain responsible for accuracy, and may not share non-public information with non-secured AI systems.
Policy · Certification
2025-09-09In force
Judicial Council of CaliforniaCalifornia
Rule 10.430, effective 1 September 2025, requires California courts permitting generative AI to adopt use policies by 15 December 2025. Policies cover court staff and judicial officers' non-adjudicative tasks, addressing confidentiality, bias, verification and disclosure of entirely AI-generated public-facing content. Standard 10.80 separately provides advisory guidelines for judicial officers' adjudicative tasks; it is not a model policy.
Court rule · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Disclosure
2025-09-01In force
California Judicial BranchCalifornia
California Standard 10.80 gives statewide guidance for judicial officers using generative AI within their adjudicative role. It addresses confidentiality, discriminatory use, accuracy verification, hallucination correction, biased or harmful content, and whether to disclose AI use when creating content provided to the public.
Policy · Disclosure · Certification
2025-09-01In force
Hays County Courts at LawTexas
Hays County Courts at Law Local Rule 1.07 requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to certify in writing before filing or presenting AI-generated information. The certification covers language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis verified through traditional legal sources.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-08-13In 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
2025-08-01In force
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Benton)Georgia
Judge Benton of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 24, 2025 standing order requires identifying the AI tool and certifying independent review plus verification of every citation to law, case, statute, or the record.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-07-24In force
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Judge Sr.)Georgia
Judge Schwall of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 11, 2025 standing order requires an AI-tool disclosure, independent-review certification, and verification that every legal, statutory, and record citation exists as cited.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-07-11In 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
Supreme Court of VirginiaVirginia
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s Rules for Generative AI Use govern judicial-system users, effective June 6, 2024 and amended May 7, 2025. The rules authorize only controlled generative AI use, require training certification, prohibit DeepSeek, restrict confidential and case-related inputs, and preserve human decision-making.
Policy · Confidentiality
2025-05-07In 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
Supreme Court of GuamGuam
The Supreme Court of Guam’s administrative order adopts a judiciary-wide AI policy effective May 1, 2025. The policy covers attorneys, litigants, judges, and court personnel; says AI use should not be discouraged; does not mandate pleading disclosure; requires thorough review of AI-generated submissions; and protects sensitive information.
Standing order · Certification · Confidentiality
2025-04-30In 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
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of FloridaFlorida
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida included AI certification and verification requirements in its amended civil case management order. The April 8, 2025 order requires attorneys and pro se parties to disclose AI-generated content on the face of civil filings and certify personal review and accuracy verification.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2025-04-08In force
Supreme Court of South Carolina (Judge Kittredge)South Carolina
The Supreme Court of South Carolina issued an interim generative AI policy for judicial officers and employees on March 25, 2025. It limits use to approved tools, requires direct human oversight for drafting court documents, restricts confidential-record processing, and reserves corrective or disciplinary measures for violations.
Policy · Permissive
2025-03-25In force
21st and 335th Judicial District Courts of Texas (Judge Winkelmann)Texas
The 21st and 335th Judicial District standing order covers cases in Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created language, citations, arguments, and legal analysis were verified through traditional sources by a lawyer.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-03-19In 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.
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
Grayson County District Courts and County Courts at LawTexas
Grayson County’s local rules include an AI certificate and courtroom prohibition. Filers using AI for legal research or drafting must attach a certificate to AI-generated pleadings, verifying language, citations, arguments, and analysis through traditional legal sources, and AI recording or transcription in court areas is strictly prohibited.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Prohibition
2025-01-31In 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
New York Supreme Court, Erie County (Judge Weinmann)New York
Justice Peter Allen Weinmann’s January 1, 2025 IAS rules stated that generative AI use was not prohibited, but counsel or parties using AI resources or material such as ChatGPT had to disclose or certify the AI program, identify the filing portion drafted by AI, and certify human review for accuracy and applicability.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2025-01-01Superseded
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
109th Judicial District Court of Texas (Judge Pool)Texas
Judge Pool’s 109th Judicial District standing order applies to all cases in Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created or contributed language, citations, arguments, and legal analysis were verified by a human through traditional sources.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-12-06In force
New York Integrated Domestic Violence Court, New York County (Judge Dawson)New York
Judge Tandra L. Dawson’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court rules, updated December 3, 2024, require counsel or a pro se litigant to submit an affirmation at the end of any filing involving substantive legal research and writing if AI such as ChatGPT was used to prepare it, and to affirm review and verification for accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2024-12-03In 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
Judicial Council of Georgia (Judge Boggs)Georgia
The Judicial Council of Georgia created an Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts in 2024. The official orders charge the committee with assessing generative AI risks and benefits for courts, evidence, data security, lawyer competency, judicial conduct, education, and court administration.
Standing order · Competence
2024-10-22In 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
Delaware JudiciaryDelaware
The Delaware Supreme Court’s October 21, 2024 order adopts an interim GenAI policy for judicial officers, employees, law clerks, interns, externs, and volunteers. Authorized users remain responsible for GenAI output, may not delegate decision-making to GenAI, and may not enter non-public information into non-approved GenAI tools.
Standing order · Certification
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
Gray County Court (Judge Porter)Texas
The Gray County Court standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to submit a certification before using AI-generated information in court. The certification requires traditional-source verification of AI-created language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-07-17In force
Hudspeth County Court (Judge MacKenzie)Texas
The Hudspeth County Court standing order applies to all cases and requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to submit a certification before using AI-generated information. The certification covers language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis verified through traditional legal sources.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-07-12In force
Collin County Courts at Law (Judge County)Texas
Collin County Courts at Law Standing Order No. 3 requires disclosure whenever an attorney or self-represented party used AI in any way to prepare a filed document. The filing must certify that each citation to law or the record has been verified and is accurate, with noncompliance potentially leading to striking.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-07-03In 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
21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County (Judge Beyer)Texas
The Bastrop County district-court AI standing order, marked amended July 1, 2024, applies to district-court causes in Bastrop County. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created legal content was verified through traditional sources.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
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
Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division (Judge Ramos)Illinois
Judge Ramos’s Cook County Law Division standing order, dated May 30, 2024, requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used. The party must also state that authority cited has been verified for existence and accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-05-30In 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
Supreme Court of HawaiiHawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s administrative order establishes a Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, effective April 16, 2024. The committee is charged with studying AI capabilities and risks, possible court operations uses, guidance or policies, self-represented litigant needs, and potential rule recommendations.
Standing order · Competence
2024-04-16In force
NYSBANew York
New York State Bar Association's April 2024 task-force report recommends AI and generative-AI guidelines for New York lawyers. It is guidance rather than a court rule: lawyers should understand AI tools, protect confidential client data, consider engagement-letter disclosure, supervise lawyers, nonlawyers and tools, verify AI work product, and maintain independent professional judgment.
Report · Competence · Confidentiality · Verification duty · Supervision · Client consent · Permissive
2024-04-06In 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
30th District Court of Wichita County (Judge McKnight)Texas
The 30th District Court of Wichita County standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to attach a certificate to each AI-generated pleading. It also prohibits AI in courtrooms or court offices for recording, listening to, or transcribing activities.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Prohibition
2024-03-26In 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 York State Supreme Court, Westchester County (Judge Zuckerman)New York
Justice David S. Zuckerman’s part rules require counsel and self-represented parties to disclose to the court whether any portion of a written submission was generated by any form of artificial intelligence and, if so, identify the portion that used that technology.
Standing order · Disclosure
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
Supreme Court of New Jersey (Judge Rabner)New Jersey
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s January 24, 2024 Notice to the Bar provides preliminary AI guidelines for New Jersey lawyers. It states lawyers have an ethical duty to check and verify AI-generated information, remain responsible for pleadings, arguments, and evidence, and that the RPCs do not require court disclosure of AI use.
Guidance · Verification duty
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
New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County (Judge Blackwood)New York
Justice Helen M. Blackwood’s part rules, amended December 13, 2023, require counsel and self-represented parties to disclose to the court if any portion of a written submission was generated by any form of artificial intelligence and, if so, to identify what portion used that technology.
Standing order · Disclosure
2023-12-13In 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 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.