AI Policies and Compliance for Law Firms
Carrier-ready templates, state bar tracking, and AI sanctions analysis for 5-50 attorney firms. Built for the managing partner whose malpractice renewal is around the corner.
Get notified when state trackers and policy templates launch
No spam. Weekly-ish updates on bar opinions, court sanctions, and what carriers are asking at renewal. Tell us a bit about your firm so we can send you what's relevant to your state and practice size.
State Bar AI Ethics Opinions
We're tracking AI ethics guidance across all 50 states plus DC. Each entry cites the primary source and maps carrier implications. More states rolling out on a weekly cadence — join the waitlist to know when yours lands.
Alabama
noneAlabama has no formal ethics opinion on AI and has not adopted ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 on technology competence. Ex...
Alaska
formalAlaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 addresses competence, confidentiality, billing, supervision, and court-disc...
Arizona
informalArizona has no formal AEAC ethics opinion on AI but has layered guidance: State Bar practice guidance, AISC "Ethical Bes...
Arkansas
informalArkansas has no standalone formal ethics opinion on AI but has acted through court orders and rule amendments. Administr...
California
informalThe State Bar of California issued practical guidance covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, and ca...
Colorado
informalColorado has the highest-profile attorney discipline case on AI (People v. Crabill, 90-day suspension, November 2023), a...
Connecticut
pendingConnecticut has no formal or informal bar ethics opinion on attorney AI use. The CBA Generative AI Committee and the Jud...
Delaware
pendingDelaware has no formal ethics opinion on AI but has been unusually active through its court infrastructure: the Delaware...
District of Columbia
formalDC has a formal ethics opinion (Opinion 388, April 2024) and binding RPC amendments (Order M284-24, effective April 7, 2...
Florida
formalFlorida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 requires attorneys to disclose AI use when it affects billing, maintain AI governance po...
Georgia
pendingGeorgia has no formal ethics opinion on AI and has not yet formally adopted the ABA technology competence comment to Rul...
Hawaii
pendingHawaii has no formal bar ethics opinion on attorney AI use and no binding state court rules requiring AI disclosure. The...
Idaho
pendingIdaho has no formal bar ethics opinion on attorney AI use as of 2026-04-23. The Idaho Supreme Court established an AI Go...
Illinois
informalIllinois has taken an administrative approach: the Illinois Supreme Court issued a formal AI Policy (effective January 1...
Indiana
pendingIndiana has no formal state bar AI ethics opinion. The Indiana Supreme Court formed an AI Governance Committee in fall 2...
Iowa
pendingIowa has no formal ISBA ethics opinion on AI and no Iowa Supreme Court AI rule. The ISBA Board established a new AI Comm...
Kansas
informalKansas has no formal KBA ethics opinion on AI but the Kansas Supreme Court formed a 21-member Ad Hoc AI Committee in Feb...
Kentucky
formalKentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024) takes one of the strongest competence positions of any state ...
Louisiana
informalLouisiana has no formal LSBA AI ethics opinion but produced the most consequential AI evidence legislation in the countr...
Maine
noneMaine has no formal or informal bar ethics opinion on attorney AI use, and neither the Maine Supreme Judicial Court nor ...
Maryland
informalMaryland has an MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force advisory (May 2025), the first published Maryland appellate opinio...
Massachusetts
noneMassachusetts has two BBO educational articles (no formal opinion numbers), SJC Interim Guidelines for court personnel (...
Michigan
informalMichigan has detailed non-binding AI FAQs (updated November 2024 / February 2025), a judicial ethics opinion on AI compe...
Minnesota
informalMinnesota has an MSBA AI Working Group report (adopted June/July 2024) proposing an AI Sandbox for access-to-justice LLM...
Mississippi
formalMississippi has Ethics Opinion No. 267 (November 14, 2024) covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, a...
Missouri
formalMissouri has Informal Opinion 2024-11 (April 25, 2024) from the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of...
Montana
noneMontana has no formal bar ethics opinion or statewide court rule on attorney AI use. Two of Montana's 22 judicial distri...
Nebraska
informalNebraska has no formal AI ethics opinion, but the Nebraska Supreme Court suspended an Omaha attorney in April 2026 over ...
Nevada
noneNevada has no formal AI ethics opinion and no binding statewide court rule. The State Bar of Nevada has published educat...
New Hampshire
pendingNew Hampshire has no formal numbered ethics opinion on AI, but the NH Bar Association Ethics Committee has published thr...
New Jersey
informalNew Jersey has the most active state Supreme Court AI governance program in the country, with three Supreme Court docume...
New Mexico
formalThe State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee issued Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 in September 2024 p...
New York
formalNew York has the most layered AI ethics landscape of any state. NYC Bar Formal Opinions 2024-5 (generative AI) and 2025-...
North Dakota
noneThe State Bar Association of North Dakota has issued no formal ethics opinion or task force report on attorney AI use as...
Ohio
informalOhio has no formal ethics opinion on AI from the Board of Professional Conduct. The operative guidance comes from OBLIC ...
Oklahoma
informalOklahoma has no formal AI ethics opinion from the OBA. Magistrate Judge Jason Robertson (E.D. Okla.) imposed $6,000 in p...
Oregon
formalOSB Formal Opinion 2025-205 establishes a comprehensive framework covering competence, confidentiality, billing, supervi...
Pennsylvania
formalPennsylvania has a joint formal advisory opinion (Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, May 2024), a binding Pennsylvania Supre...
Rhode Island
pendingRhode Island has no formal bar ethics opinion on AI. The Rhode Island Supreme Court established a Committee on Artificia...
South Carolina
informalSouth Carolina has no formal bar ethics opinion on AI. The primary binding development is the South Carolina Supreme Cou...
South Dakota
noneSouth Dakota has issued no formal ethics opinion, no informal bar guidance document, no court standing orders, and no pe...
Tennessee
pendingTennessee has no formal ethics opinion from the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (TBPR) and no binding AI ...
Texas
formalTexas has formal Ethics Opinion 705 (Feb 2025), a comprehensive TRAIL task force report, and the most developed federal ...
Utah
informalUtah has no formal ethics opinion but has binding statutory and case law overlays. Utah enacted the first US state gener...
Vermont
noneVermont has no formal ethics opinion on AI, no attorney-specific AI legislation, and no court standing orders requiring ...
Virginia
formalVirginia has informal VSB guidance (Aug 2024) plus binding Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 on fees, approved by the Supreme Co...
Washington
formalWashington has one formal advisory opinion (WSBA AO 202505, November 2025) mapping seven core professional duties to AI ...
West Virginia
formalWest Virginia's L.E.O. 24-01 (June 2024) is among the most detailed state AI ethics opinions in the country and is notab...
Wisconsin
noneWisconsin has issued no formal ethics opinion on AI and no binding judicial or administrative AI policy. Two concrete Wi...
Wyoming
noneWyoming has no formal bar ethics opinion, no AI task force, and no statewide AI standing order. Bar Counsel Mark Gifford...
View all states →
Recent AI Hallucination Cases
Courts have sanctioned attorneys for submitting AI-generated citations that were fabricated. The tracker currently documents 33 attorney AI sanctions and disciplinary actions across state and federal courts, with monetary sanctions exceeding $1.8M+ in court-imposed fees and costs (excluding suspensions, disqualifications, and bar referrals). The pace is accelerating.
| Case | Court | Date | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prososki v. Regan | Neb. Sup. Ct. | Mar 2026 | Pending |
| Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission | Or. Ct. App. | Mar 2026 | $10,000 |
| Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville | E.D. La. | Mar 2026 | $1,000 personal sanction against attorney John R. Walker, plus mandatory 2 hours of Generative AI CLE by December 31, 2026, plus voluntary repayment to clients of fees earned drafting the offending brief. The other three signing attorneys received judicial admonition without monetary sanctions. |
What's coming
- All 50 states + DC — bar opinions, court orders, and state-specific carrier implications
- Named case archive — canonical reference pages for every AI sanctions case
- Policy templates — carrier-ready AI use policies, vendor due diligence checklists, citation verification protocols