State Bar AI Reference Guide
A living reference to state supreme court, bar association, and ethics authority governing attorney use of artificial intelligence.
Casefriend operationalizes attorney approval and audit‑ready accountability in alignment with evolving professional responsibility standards through Caisey Provenance.
📘 View our Work Comp Carrier AI Reference Guide
📱 This table is mobile‑friendly — swipe or rotate to view →
| Jurisdiction | Authority Type | Authority / Source | Year | Core AI Rule | Key Requirements | Practical Impact for Counsel | Practical Casefriend Compliance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABA (National) | Formal Ethics Opinion | ABA Formal Opinion 512 |
2024 | Lawyers using generative AI must comply with existing ethical duties. | — | Establishes the national baseline for attorney accountability when using AI. | YES  |
| Alabama | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Alaska | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Arizona | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Arkansas | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| California | State Bar (COPRAC) | CA Bar Practical Guidance COPRAC AI Advisory |
2023 2026 |
Generative AI may be used only in a manner consistent with professional responsibility obligations. | — | Confidentiality, verification, and attorney supervision are required. | YES |
| Colorado | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Connecticut | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Delaware | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| District of Columbia | Bar Ethics Opinion | DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 |
2024 | Lawyers must understand and supervise AI tools and protect client confidentiality. | — | Attorney accountability and supervision are mandatory. | YES |
| Florida | State Bar Ethics Opinion | Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24‑1 |
2024 | Lawyers must verify AI output and may not bill for time saved by AI. | — | AI efficiency does not alter billing or supervision obligations. | YES |
| Georgia | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Hawaii | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Idaho | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Illinois | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Indiana | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Iowa | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Kansas | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Kentucky | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Louisiana | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Maine | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Maryland | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Massachusetts | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Michigan | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Minnesota | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Mississippi | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Missouri | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Montana | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| Nebraska | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |
| New Jersey | Supreme Court Committee | NJ Supreme Court AI Guidelines |
2024 | Attorneys must ensure responsible and supervised use of AI. | — | AI governance and oversight policies are required. | YES |
| New York | NYC Bar Ethics Opinion | NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024‑5 |
2024 | Generative AI must be used in compliance with ethical obligations. | — | Verification, confidentiality, and supervision are required. | YES |
| North Carolina | State Bar Ethics Opinion | NC Formal Ethics Opinion 2024‑1 |
2024 | Lawyers must ensure competent and confidential use of AI. | — | Attorney review and oversight are mandatory. | YES |
| Pennsylvania | Joint Bar Ethics Opinion | Joint Formal Opinion 2024‑200 |
2024 | Generative AI implicates competence, confidentiality, and supervision duties. | — | Independent review of AI output is required. | YES |
| Texas | State Bar Ethics Opinion | Texas Ethics Opinion 705 |
2025 | Lawyers may use AI tools but remain fully responsible for work product. | — | Human oversight and verification are mandatory. | YES |
| Wyoming | — | No formal statewide AI‑specific guidance identified | — | Existing professional responsibility rules apply. | — | Attorneys should follow ABA guidance and applicable local ethics rules. | — |