State Bar AI Ethics Opinions: A 2026 Reference Guide

Lawyers increasingly rely on AI for document review, research, and drafting. State bars have responded at different speeds. This guide summarizes published AI ethics opinions as of July 2026.

ABA Standing Committee on Ethics

Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024): Lawyers must supervise non-lawyer assistance, including AI. Substantially equivalent to supervising junior associates.

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/dispbullet/2024-july-2024/512.pdf

Formal Opinion 533 (December 2024): A lawyers duty of technology competence extends to understanding generative AIs benefits AND risks (hallucination, bias, confidentiality). Lawyers must advise clients about AIs role in legal work.

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/dispbullet/2024-december-2024/533.pdf

State-Level Opinions

California (2024)

A lawyer may use AI in the practice of law, provided the lawyer uses AI as a tool with the lawyers informed analysis and independent judgment.

Source: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/Final-Practical-Guidance-for-the-Use-of-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Practice-of-Law.pdf

Florida (2024)

Lawyers must (1) maintain competence in AI technology use, (2) protect client confidentiality, (3) avoid deceptive practices, (4) bill reasonably for AI-assisted tasks.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/florida-bar-board-of-governors-issues-advisory-opinion-on-generative-ai/

New York (2025)

The use of generative AI is consistent with a lawyers obligation to provide competent representation.

NYSBA Opinion 24-87: https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Opinion-24-87-GAI-Use.pdf

New Jersey (2025)

Lawyers may use AI but must (1) understand limitations, (2) supervise AI work, (3) verify citations, (4) protect confidentiality, (5) communicate AI use to clients.

Source: https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/assets/courts/supreme/aos/advance-sheet-opinions/2025/njs17823.pdf

Texas (2025)

Lawyers using AI in litigation must disclose the technology used.

Source: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-Adv-Op-05.pdf

Common themes

1. Competence required (ABA Model Rule 1.1)
2. Verification of citations mandatory
3. Confidentiality with BAA-protected tools
4. Reasonable fees for AI-assisted work
5. Communication with clients
6. Disclosure to court (FRCP Rule 26 in federal courts)

References

1. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024)
2. ABA Formal Opinion 533 (2024)
3. California State Bar (2024)
4. Florida Bar (2024)
5. NYSBA Opinion 24-87 (2025)
6. New Jersey AI Opinion (2025)
7. Texas AI Opinion (2025)

About

Dillon Deutsch built CourtGPT.ai for AI-augmented legal research with citation verification. https://courtgpt.ai

This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Consult your state bars full opinion text for binding guidance.