A Compendium of Legal Ethics Opinions on Gen AI (As Compiled by – You Guessed It – Gen AI)

This week, I have been experimenting with Deep Research, the AI agent OpenAI released on Sunday that it says is capable of completing multi-step research tasks and synthesizing large amounts of online information. Not to be confused with the controversial Chinese AI product DeepSeek), Deep Research is said to be particularly useful for people in fields such as finance, science and law.

Already this week, I published two of these experiments. In the first, I used it to analyze the legality of President Trump’s pause of federal grants. In about 10 minutes, it produced a 9,000 word detailed memorandum, concluding that the pause “appears to rest on shaky legal ground.”

Next, I used it to research and recommend the best law practice management suite for a four-lawyer firm. It produced a fairly detailed response, including two charts comparing features, pricing, usability, security, support and user satisfaction.

For today’s task, I asked it to create a report detailing every legal ethics opinion pertaining to generative AI. Here was my exact prompt:

“Create a report detailing every legal ethics opinion from every national, state, local and specialty bar association or lawyer licensing body pertaining to the ethics of lawyers’ use of generative artificial intelligence.”

It responded to my prompt with several questions about the scope of the research I’d requested, such as whether it should focus only on formal ethics opinions or also include informal guidance. After I answered its questions, it produced the report published below. After it produced the report, I asked it to also summarize the findings in a chart, which is what you see immediately below.

I have not verified that this is a complete list. If anyone knows where I can find a complete list to compare against, please let me know.

That said, I was again impressed by its ability to conduct comprehensive research across multiple sources and generate a report. The entire task took it 15 minutes.

 

Issuing Body	Opinion Title/Number	Date Issued	Key Themes	Disclosure Required	Billing Guidance
ABA	Formal Opinion 512	July 2024	Competence, Confidentiality, Supervision, Candor, Fees	Case-dependent	AI efficiency should reduce fees
California	Practical Guidance	November 2023	Confidentiality, Competence, AI Disclosure, Supervision	Not mandatory, but recommended	Efficiency gains must be fair to clients
Florida	Advisory Opinion 24-1	January 2024	Confidentiality, Supervision, Fees, AI Transparency	Client informed consent advised	Must not charge for AI time savings
New York State Bar	Task Force Report	April 2024	Competence, Bias, AI Oversight, Client Communication	Recommended in certain cases	Clients should benefit from AI-driven efficiency
New York City Bar	Formal Opinion 2024-5	August 2024	Confidentiality, Competence, Supervision, AI Disclosure	Required for external AI use	No overcharging for AI use
New Jersey Supreme Court	Preliminary Guidelines	January 2024	Competence, Candor, Supervision, AI Verification	Not always, but recommended	No billing for time not actually spent
Pennsylvania & Philadelphia Bars	Joint Opinion 2024-200	June 2024	Competence, Candor, AI Hallucinations, Billing Ethics	Yes, in some AI use cases	Cannot bill AI time as manual work
Kentucky	Ethics Opinion KBA E-457	March 2024	Competence, AI Use in Billing, Supervision, Client Consent	Depends on AI’s impact on case	Cannot bill for AI learning time
North Carolina	Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1	November 2024	Competence, Supervision, Confidentiality, AI Oversight	Not always, but must protect confidentiality	AI-based efficiency should lower costs
Texas	Proposed Opinion 2024-6	November 2024	Competence, Confidentiality, AI Trustworthiness, Supervision	Not explicitly required	Fair pricing required for AI use
Virginia	AI Guidance Update	August 2024	Confidentiality, Billing, Supervision, AI Court Compliance	Not mandated but recommended	AI costs must align with ethical billing
D.C. Bar	Ethics Opinion 388	September 2024	Competence, AI Verification, Supervision, Client Files	Required in specific situations	No excess fees for AI use
USPTO	Practice Guidance (2023–2024)	April 2024	Candor, Confidentiality, AI Use in Legal Submissions	Court compliance required	Legal AI use cannot inflate costs

 

National Bar Associations

American Bar Association – Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512, “Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools,” on July 29, 2024​. americanbar.org americanbar.org. This is the ABA’s first ethics guidance focused on generative AI use by lawyers. It instructs attorneys to “fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.”​ jenkinslaw.org In short, existing ABA Model Rules apply to AI just as they do to any technology.

Key concerns and recommendations: The opinion emphasizes that lawyers must maintain technological competence – understanding the benefits and risks of AI tools they use​ jenkinslaw.org. It notes the duty of confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6) requires caution when inputting client data into AI tools; lawyers should ensure no confidential information is revealed without informed client consent​ jenkinslaw.org. Lawyers should also evaluate whether to inform or obtain consent from clients about AI use, especially if using it in ways that affect the representation​ jenkinslaw.org. AI outputs must be independently verified for accuracy to fulfill duties of candor and avoid filing false or frivolous material (Rules 3.3, 3.1)​ jenkinslaw.org. The ABA highlights that “hallucinations” (convincing but false outputs) are a major pitfall​ americanbar.org. Supervision duties (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) mean lawyers must oversee both subordinate lawyers and nonlawyers and the AI tools they use​ jenkinslaw.org. The opinion also warns that fees must be reasonable – if AI improves efficiency, lawyers should not overbill for time not actually spent​ kaiserlaw.com. Overall, Formal Op. 512 provides a comprehensive framework mapping generative AI use to existing ethics rules​ americanbar.org americanbar.org.

(See ABA Formal Op. 512​ jenkinslaw.org for full text.)

State Bar Associations and Regulatory Bodies

California – “Practical Guidance” by COPRAC (November 2023)

The State Bar of California took early action by issuing “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law,” approved by the Bar’s Board of Trustees on Nov. 16, 2023​

calbar.ca.gov jdsupra.com. Rather than a formal opinion, it is a guidance document (in chart format) developed by the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC). It applies California’s Rules of Professional Conduct to generative AI scenarios.

Key points: California’s guidance stresses confidentiality – attorneys “must not input any confidential client information” into AI tools that lack adequate protections​ calbar.ca.gov. Lawyers should vet an AI vendor’s security and data use policies, and anonymize or refrain from sharing sensitive data unless certain it will be protected​ calbar.ca.gov calbar.ca.gov. The duty of competence and diligence requires understanding how the AI works and its limitations​ jdsupra.com. Lawyers should review AI outputs for accuracy and bias, and “AI should never replace a lawyer’s professional judgment.”​ jdsupra.com If AI assists with research or drafting, the attorney must critically review the results. The guidance also addresses supervision: firms should train and supervise lawyers and staff in proper AI use jdsupra.com. Communication with clients may entail disclosing AI use in some cases – e.g. if it materially affects the representation – but California did not mandate disclosure in all instances​ jdsupra.com. Finally, the guidance notes candor: the duty of candor to tribunals means attorneys must check AI-generated citations and facts to avoid false statements in court​ jdsupra.com. Overall, California’s approach is to treat AI as another technology that must be used consistent with existing rules on competence, confidentiality, supervision, etc., providing “guiding principles rather than best practices”​ calbar.ca.gov.

(Source: State Bar of CA Generative AI Guidance​ jdsupra.com jdsupra.com.)

Florida – Advisory Opinion 24-1 (January 2024)

The Florida Bar issued Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1 in late 2023, which was adopted by the Bar’s Board of Governors in January 2024​ floridabar.org floridabar.org. Titled “Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI,” this formal ethics opinion gives a green light to using generative AI “to the extent that the lawyer can reasonably guarantee compliance with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.” floridabar.org It identifies four focus areas: confidentiality, oversight, fees, and advertising​ hinshawlaw.com hinshawlaw.com.

Key points: Confidentiality: Florida stresses that protecting client confidentiality (Rule 4-1.6) is paramount. Lawyers should take “reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure” of client info by an AI system​ jdsupra.com. The opinion “advisable to obtain a client’s informed consent before using a third-party AI that would disclose confidential information.”​

jdsupra.com This aligns with prior cloud-computing opinions. Oversight: Generative AI must be treated like a non-lawyer assistant – the lawyer must supervise and vet its work​ jdsupra.com. The opinion warns that lawyers relying on AI face “the same perils as relying on an overconfident nonlawyer assistant”​ floridabar.org. Attorneys must review AI outputs (research, drafts, etc.) for accuracy and legal soundness before use​ floridabar.org. Notably, after the infamous Mata v. Avianca incident of fake cases, Florida emphasizes candor: no frivolous or false material from AI should be submitted​ floridabar.org. Fees: Improved efficiency from AI cannot be used to charge inflated fees. A lawyer “can ethically only charge a client for actual costs incurred” – time saved by AI should not be billed as if the lawyer did the work​ jdsupra.com. If a lawyer will charge for using an AI tool (as a cost), the client must be informed in writing​ jdsupra.com. And training time – a lawyer’s time learning an AI tool – cannot be billed to the client​ jdsupra.com. Advertising: If lawyers advertise their use of AI, they must not be false or misleading. Florida specifically notes that if using a chatbot to interact with potential clients, those users must be told they are interacting with an AI, not a human lawyer​ jdsupra.com. Any claims about an AI’s capabilities must be objectively verifiable (no puffery that your AI is “better” than others without proof)​ floridabar.org floridabar.org. In sum, Florida concludes: “a lawyer may ethically utilize generative AI, but only to the extent the lawyer can reasonably guarantee compliance with duties of confidentiality, candor, avoiding frivolous claims, truthfulness, reasonable fees, and proper advertising.”​ floridabar.org.

(Sources: Florida Bar Op. 24-1​ floridabar.org jdsupra.com.)

New York State Bar Association – Task Force Report (April 2024)

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) did not issue a formal ethics opinion via its ethics committee, but its Task Force on Artificial Intelligence produced a comprehensive 85-page report adopted by the House of Delegates on April 6, 2024​ floridabar.org floridabar.org. This report includes a chapter on the “Ethical Impact” of AI on law practice​ floridabar.org, effectively providing guidance to NY lawyers. It mirrors many concerns seen in formal opinions elsewhere.

Key points: The NYSBA report underscores competence and cautions against “techno-solutionism.” It notes that “a refusal to use technology that makes legal work more accurate and efficient may be considered a refusal to provide competent representation” nysba.org nysba.org – implying lawyers should stay current with helpful AI tools. At the same time, it warns attorneys not to blindly trust AI as a silver bullet. The report coins “techno-solutionism” as the overbelief that new tech (like gen AI) can solve all problems, reminding lawyers that human verification is still required​ nysba.org nysba.org. The infamous Avianca case is cited to illustrate the need to verify AI outputs and supervise the “nonlawyer” tool (AI) under Rule 5.3​ nysba.org. The report addresses the duty of confidentiality & privacy in depth: Lawyers must ensure client information isn’t inadvertently shared or used to train public AI models​ nysba.org nysba.org. It suggests that if AI tools store or learn from inputs, that raises confidentiality concerns​ nysba.org. Client consent or use of secure “closed” AI systems may be needed to protect privileged data. The report also covers supervision (Rule 5.3) – attorneys should supervise AI use similarly to how they supervise human assistants​ nysba.org. It touches on bias and fairness, noting generative AI trained on biased data could perpetuate discrimination, which lawyers must guard against​ lawnext.com. Interestingly, the NYSBA guidance also links AI use to reasonable fees: it suggests effective use of AI can factor into whether a fee is reasonable​ jdsupra.com jdsupra.com (e.g. inefficiently refusing to use available AI might waste client money, whereas using AI and still charging full hours might be unreasonable). In sum, New York’s bar leaders affirm that ethical duties of competence, confidentiality, and supervision fully apply to AI. They encourage using AI’s benefits to improve service, but caution against its risks and urge ongoing attorney oversight floridabar.org floridabar.org.

(Sources: NYSBA Task Force Report​ nysba.org nysba.org.)

New York City Bar Association – Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 2024)

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics issued Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-5 on August 7, 2024​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com. This opinion, in a user-friendly chart format, provides practical guidelines for NYC lawyers on generative AI. The Committee explicitly aimed to give “guardrails and not hard-and-fast restrictions” in this evolving area​ nydailyrecord.com.

Key points: Confidentiality: The NYC Bar draws a distinction between “closed” AI systems (e.g. an in-house or vendor tool that does not share data externally) and public AI services like ChatGPT. If using an AI that stores or shares inputs outside the firm, client informed consent is required before inputting any confidential information​ nydailyrecord.com. Even with closed/internal AI, lawyers must maintain internal confidentiality protections. The opinion warns lawyers to review AI Terms of Use regularly to ensure the provider isn’t using or exposing client data without consent​ nydailyrecord.com. Competence: Echoing others, NYC advises that lawyers “understand to a reasonable degree how the technology works, its limitations, and the applicable Terms of Use” before using generative AI​ nydailyrecord.com. Attorneys should avoid delegating their professional judgment to AI; any AI output is just a starting point or draft​ nydailyrecord.com. Lawyers must ensure outputs are accurate and tailored to the client’s needs – essentially, verify everything and edit AI-generated material so that it truly serves the client’s interests​ nydailyrecord.com. Supervision: Firms should implement policies and training for lawyers and staff on acceptable AI use​ nydailyrecord.com. The Committee notes that client intake chatbots (if used on a firm’s website, for example) require special oversight to avoid inadvertently forming attorney-client relationships or giving legal advice without proper vetting​ nydailyrecord.com. In other words, a chatbot interacting with the public should be carefully monitored by lawyers to ensure it doesn’t mislead users about its nature or create unintended obligations​ nydailyrecord.com. The NYC Bar’s guidance aligns with California’s in format and substance, reinforcing that the core duties of confidentiality, competence (tech proficiency), and supervision all apply when lawyers use generative AI tools​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com.

(Source: NYC Bar Formal Op. 2024-5​nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com.)

New Jersey Supreme Court – Preliminary Guidelines (January 2024)

In New Jersey, the state’s highest court itself weighed in. On January 24, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Committee on AI and the Courts issued “Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of AI by New Jersey Lawyers,” which were published as a Notice to the Bar​ njcourts.gov njcourts.gov. These guidelines, effective immediately, aim to help NJ lawyers comply with existing Rules of Professional Conduct when using generative AI​ njcourts.gov. 

Key points: The Court made clear that AI does not change lawyers’ fundamental duties. Any use of AI “must be employed with the same commitment to diligence, confidentiality, honesty, and client advocacy as traditional methods of practice.”​ njcourts.gov In other words, tech advances do not dilute responsibilities. The NJ guidelines highlight accuracy and truthfulness: lawyers have an ethical duty to ensure their work is accurate, so they must always check AI-generated content for “hallucinations” or errors before relying on it​ jdsupra.com. Submitting false or fake information generated by AI would violate rules against misrepresentations to the court. The guidelines reiterate candor to tribunals – attorneys must not present AI-produced output containing fabricated cases or facts (the Mata/Avianca situation is alluded to)​jdsupra.com. Regarding communication and client consent, NJ took a measured approach: There is “no per se requirement to inform a client” about every AI use, unless not telling the client would prevent the client from making informed decisions about the representation​ jdsupra.com. For example, if AI is used in a trivial manner (typo correction, formatting), disclosure isn’t required; but if it’s used in substantive tasks that affect the case, lawyers should consider informing the client, especially if there’s heightened risk. Confidentiality: Lawyers must ensure any AI tool is secure to avoid inadvertent disclosures of client info​ jdsupra.com. This echoes the duty to use “reasonable efforts” to safeguard confidential data (RPC 1.6). No misconduct: The Court reminds that all rules on attorney misconduct (dishonesty, fraud, bias, etc.) apply in AI usage​ jdsupra.com. For instance, using AI in a way that produces discriminatory outcomes or that frustrates justice would breach Rule 8.4. Supervision: Law firms must supervise how their lawyers and staff use AI jdsupra.com – establishing internal policies to ensure ethical use. Overall, New Jersey’s top court signaled that it embraces innovation (noting AI’s potential benefits) but insists lawyers “balance the benefits of innovation while safeguarding against misuse.”​ njcourts.gov

(Sources: NJ Supreme Court Guidelines​ jdsupra.com jdsupra.com.)

Pennsylvania & Philadelphia Bars – Joint Opinion 2024-200 (June 2024)

The Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) and Philadelphia Bar Association jointly issued Formal Opinion 2024-200 in mid-2024​ lawnext.com lawnext.com. This collaborative opinion (“Joint Formal Op. 2024-200”) provides ethical guidance for Pennsylvania lawyers using generative AI. It repeatedly emphasizes that the same rules apply to AI as to any technology​ lawnext.com.

Key points: The joint opinion places heavy emphasis on competence (Rule 1.1). It famously states “Lawyers must be proficient in using technological tools to the same extent they are in traditional methods”​ lawnext.com. In other words, attorneys should treat AI as part of the competence duty – understanding e-discovery software, legal research databases, and now generative AI, is part of being a competent lawyer​ lawnext.com. The opinion acknowledges generative AI’s unique risk: it can hallucinate (generate false citations or facts)​ lawnext.com. Thus, due diligence is required – lawyers must verify all AI outputs, especially legal research results and citations​ lawnext.com lawnext.com. The opinion bluntly warns that if you ask AI for cases and “then file them in court without even bothering to read or Shepardize them, that is stupid.”​ lawnext.com (The opinion uses more polite language, but this captures the spirit.) It highlights bias as well: AI may carry implicit biases from training data, so lawyers should be alert to any discriminatory or skewed content in AI output​ lawnext.com. The Pennsylvania/Philly opinion also advises lawyers to communicate with clients about AI use. Specifically, lawyers should be transparent and “provide clear, transparent explanations” of how AI is being used in the case​ lawnext.com lawnext.com. In some situations, obtaining client consent before using certain AI tools is recommended​ lawnext.com lawnext.com – e.g., if the tool will handle confidential information or significantly shape the legal work. The opinion lays out “12 Points of Responsibility” for using gen AI​ lawnext.com lawnext.com, which include many of the above: ensure truthfulness and accuracy of AI-derived content, double-check citations, maintain confidentiality (ensure AI vendors keep data secure)​ lawnext.com, check for conflicts (make sure use of AI doesn’t introduce any conflict of interest)​ lawnext.com, and transparency with clients, courts, and colleagues about AI use and its limitations​ lawnext.com. It also addresses proper billing practices: lawyers shouldn’t overcharge when AI boosts efficiency​ lawnext.com. If AI saves time, the lawyer should not bill as if they did it manually – they may bill for the actual time or consider value-based fees, but padding hours violates the rule on reasonable fees​ lawnext.com. Overall, the Pennsylvania and Philly bars take the stance that embracing AI is fine — even beneficial — as long as lawyers “remain fully accountable for the results,” use AI carefully, and don’t neglect any ethical duty in the process​ lawnext.com lawnext.com.

(Sources: Joint PBA/Phila. Opinion 2024-200 summarized by Ambrogi​ lawnext.com lawnext.com.)

Kentucky – Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (March 2024)

The Kentucky Bar Association issued Ethics Opinion KBA E-457, “The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law,” on March 15, 2024​ cdn.ymaws.com. This formal opinion (finalized after a comment period in mid-2024) provides a nuanced roadmap for Kentucky lawyers. It not only answers basic questions but also offers broader insight, reflecting the work of a KBA Task Force on AI​ techlawcrossroads.com.

Key points: Competence: Like other jurisdictions, Kentucky affirms that keeping abreast of technology (including AI) is a mandatory aspect of competence​ techlawcrossroads.com techlawcrossroads.com. Kentucky’s Rule 1.1 Comment 6 (equivalent to ABA Comment 8) says lawyers “should keep abreast of … the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” The opinion stresses this is not optional: “It’s not a ‘should’; it’s a must.”​ techlawcrossroads.com Lawyers cannot ethically ignore AI’s existence or potential in law practice​ techlawcrossroads.com techlawcrossroads.com (implying that failing to understand how AI might improve service could itself be a lapse in competence). Disclosure to clients: Kentucky takes a practical stance that there is “no duty to disclose to the client the ‘rote’ use of AI generated research,” absent special circumstances​ techlawcrossroads.com. If an attorney is just using AI as a tool (like one might use Westlaw or a spell-checker), they generally need not inform the client. However, there are important exceptions – if the client has specifically limited use of AI, or if use of AI presents significant risk or would require client consent under the rules, then disclosure is needed techlawcrossroads.com. Lawyers should discuss risks and benefits of AI with clients if client consent is required for its use (for example, if AI will process confidential data, informed consent may be wise)​ techlawcrossroads.com. Fees: KBA E-457 is very direct about fees and AI. If AI significantly reduces the time spent on a matter, the lawyer may need to reduce their fees accordingly​ techlawcrossroads.com. A lawyer cannot charge a client as if a task took 5 hours if AI allowed it to be done in 1 hour – that would make the fee unreasonable. The opinion also says a lawyer can only charge a client for the expense of using AI (e.g., the cost of a paid AI service) if the client agrees to that fee in writing​ techlawcrossroads.com. Otherwise, passing along AI tool costs may be impermissible. In short, AI’s efficiencies should benefit clients, not become a hidden profit center. Confidentiality: Lawyers have a “continuing duty to safeguard client information if they use AI,” and must comply with all applicable court rules on AI use​ techlawcrossroads.com. This means vetting AI providers’ security and ensuring no confidential data is exposed. Kentucky echoes that attorneys must understand the terms and operation of any third-party AI system they use​ techlawcrossroads.com. They should know how the AI service stores and uses data. Court rules compliance: Notably, the opinion reminds lawyers to follow any court-imposed rules about AI (for instance, if a court requires disclosure of AI-drafted filings, the lawyer must do so)​ cdn.ymaws.com. Firm policies and training: KBA E-457 advises law firms to create informed policies on AI use and to supervise those they manage in following these policies​ techlawcrossroads.com. In summary, Kentucky’s opinion encourages lawyers to embrace AI’s potential but to do so carefully: stay competent with the technology, be transparent when needed, adjust fees fairly, protect confidentiality, and always maintain ultimate responsibility for the work. It concludes that Kentucky lawyers “cannot run from or ignore AI.”​ techlawcrossroads.com

(Source: KBA E-457 (2024) via TechLaw Crossroads summary techlawcrossroads.com techlawcrossroads.com.)

North Carolina – Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1 (November 2024)

The North Carolina State Bar adopted 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, “Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice,” on November 1, 2024​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. This opinion squarely addresses whether and how NC lawyers can use AI tools consistent with their ethical duties.

Key points: The NC State Bar gives a cautious “Yes” to using AI, under specific conditions: “Yes, provided the lawyer uses any AI program, tool, or resource competently, securely to protect client confidentiality, and with proper supervision when relying on the AI’s work product.”​ ncbar.gov. That single sentence captures the three pillars of NC’s guidance: competence, confidentiality, and supervision. NC acknowledges that nothing in the Rules explicitly prohibits AI use​ ncbar.gov, so it comes down to applying existing rules. Competence: Lawyers must understand the technology sufficiently to use it effectively and safely​ ncbar.gov. Rule 1.1 and its Comment in NC (which, like the ABA, includes tech competence) require lawyers to know what they don’t know – if a lawyer isn’t competent with an AI tool, they must get up to speed or refrain. NC emphasizes that using AI is often the lawyer’s own decision but it must be made prudently, considering factors like the tool’s reliability and cost-benefit for the client​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. Confidentiality & Security: Rule 1.6(c) in North Carolina obligates lawyers to take reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client info. So, before using any cloud-based or third-party AI, the lawyer must ensure it is “sufficiently secure and compatible with the lawyer’s confidentiality obligations.”​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. The opinion suggests attorneys evaluate providers like they would any vendor handling client data – e.g., examine terms of service, data storage policies, etc., similar to prior NC guidance on cloud computing​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. If the AI is “self-learning” (using inputs to improve itself), lawyers should be wary that client data might later resurface to others​ ncbar.gov. NC stops short of mandating client consent for AI use, but it implies that if an AI tool can’t be used consistent with confidentiality, then either don’t use it or get client permission. Supervision and Independent Judgment: NC treats AI output like work by a nonlawyer assistant. Under Rule 5.3, lawyers must supervise the use of AI tools and “exercise independent professional judgment in determining how (or if) to use the product of an AI tool” for a client​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. This means a lawyer cannot blindly accept an AI’s result – they must review and verify it before relying on it. If an AI drafts a contract or brief, the lawyer is responsible for editing and ensuring it’s correct and appropriate. NC explicitly analogizes AI to both other software and to nonlawyer staff: AI is “between” a software tool and a nonlawyer assistant in how we think of it​ ncbar.gov. Thus, the lawyer must both know how to use the software and supervise its output as if it were a junior employee’s work. Bottom line: NC FO 2024-1 concludes that a lawyer may use AI in practice – for tasks like document review, legal research, drafting, etc. – as long as the lawyer remains fully responsible for the outcome​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov. The opinion purposefully doesn’t dictate when AI is appropriate or not, recognizing the technology is evolving​ ncbar.gov. But it clearly states that if a lawyer decides to employ AI, they are “fully responsible” for its use and must ensure it is competent use, confidential use, and supervised use​ ncbar.gov ncbar.gov.

(Source: NC 2024 FEO-1​ncbar.gov ncbar.gov.)

Texas – Proposed Opinion 2024-6 (Draft, November 2024)

The State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee has circulated a Proposed Ethics Opinion No. 2024-6 (posted for public comment on Nov. 19, 2024) regarding lawyers’ use of generative AI​ texasbar.com. (As of this writing, it is a draft opinion awaiting final adoption.) This Texas draft provides a “high-level overview” of ethical issues raised by AI, requested by a Bar task force on AI​ texasbar.com.

Key points (draft): The proposed Texas opinion covers familiar ground. It notes the duty of competence (Rule 1.01) extends to understanding relevant technology​ texasbar.com. Texas specifically cites its prior ethics opinions on cloud computing and metadata, which required lawyers to have a “reasonable and current understanding” of those technologies​ texasbar.com texasbar.com. By analogy, any Texas lawyer using generative AI “must have a reasonable and current understanding of the technology” and its capabilities and limits​ texasbar.com. In practical terms, this means lawyers should educate themselves on how tools like ChatGPT actually work (e.g. that they predict text rather than retrieve vetted sources) and what their known pitfalls are texasbar.com. The draft opinion spends time describing Mata v. Avianca to illustrate the dangers of not understanding AI’s lack of a reliable legal database​ texasbar.com texasbar.com. On confidentiality (Rule 1.05 in Texas), the opinion again builds on prior guidance: lawyers must safeguard client information when using any third-party service​ texasbar.com texasbar.com. It suggests precautions similar to those for cloud storage: “acquire a general understanding of how the technology works; review (and potentially renegotiate) the Terms of Service; [ensure] the provider will keep data confidential; and stay vigilant about data security.”​ texasbar.com. (These examples are drawn from Texas Ethics Op. 680 on cloud computing, which the AI opinion heavily references.) If an AI tool cannot be used in a way that protects confidential info, the lawyer should not use it for those purposes. The Texas draft also flags duty to avoid frivolous submissions (Rule 3.01) and duty of candor to tribunal (Rule 3.03) as directly relevant​ texasbar.com. Using AI doesn’t excuse a lawyer from these obligations – citing fake cases or making false statements is no less an ethical violation because an AI generated them. Lawyers must thoroughly vet AI-generated legal research and content to ensure it’s grounded in real law and facts​ texasbar.com texasbar.com. The opinion essentially says: if you choose to use AI, you must double-check its work just as you would a junior lawyer’s memo or a nonlawyer assistant’s draft. Supervision (Rules 5.01, 5.03): Supervising partners should have firm-wide measures so that any use of AI by their team is ethical texasbar.com texasbar.com. This could mean creating policies on approved AI tools and requiring verification of AI outputs. In summary, the Texas proposed opinion doesn’t ban generative AI; it provides a “snapshot” of issues and reinforces that core duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision must guide any use of AI in practice texasbar.com texasbar.com. (The committee acknowledges the AI landscape is rapidly changing, so they focused on broad principles rather than specifics that might soon be outdated​ texasbar.com.) Once finalized, Texas’s opinion will likely align with the consensus: lawyers can harness AI’s benefits if they remain careful and accountable.

(Source: Texas Proposed Op. 2024-6​ texasbar.com texasbar.com.)

Virginia State Bar – AI Guidance Update (August 2024)

In 2024 the Virginia State Bar released a short set of guidelines on generative AI as an update on its website (around August 2024)​ nydailyrecord.com. This concise guidance stands out for its practicality and flexibility. Rather than an extensive opinion, Virginia issued overarching advice that can adapt as AI technology evolves​ nydailyrecord.com. 

Key points: Virginia first emphasizes that lawyers’ basic ethical responsibilities “have not changed” due to AI, and that generative AI presents issues “fundamentally similar” to those with other technology or with supervising people​ nydailyrecord.com. This frames the guidance: existing rules suffice. On confidentiality, the Bar advises lawyers to vet how AI providers handle data just as they would with any vendor​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com . Legal-specific AI products (designed for lawyers, with better data security) may offer more protection, but even then attorneys “must make reasonable efforts to assess” the security and “whether and under what circumstances” confidential info could be exposed​ nydailyrecord.com. In other words, even if using an AI tool marketed as secure for lawyers, you should confirm that it truly keeps your client’s data confidential (no sharing or training on it without consent)​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com. Virginia notably aligns with most jurisdictions (and diverges from a stricter ABA stance) regarding client consent: “there is no per se requirement to inform a client about the use of generative AI in their matter”​ nydailyrecord.com. Unless something about the AI use would necessitate client disclosure (e.g., an agreement with the client, or an unusual risk like using a very public AI for sensitive info), lawyers generally need not obtain consent for routine AI use​ nydailyrecord.com. This is consistent with the idea that using AI can be like using any software tool behind the scenes. Next, supervision and verification: The bar stresses that lawyers must review all AI outputs as they would work done by a junior attorney or nonlawyer assistant​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com. Specifically, “verify that any citations are accurate (and real)” and generally ensure the AI’s work product is correct​ nydailyrecord.com. This duty extends to supervising others in the firm – if a paralegal or associate uses AI, the responsible lawyer must ensure they are doing so properly​ nydailyrecord.com. On fees and billing, Virginia takes a clear stance: a lawyer may not bill a client for time not actually spent due to AI efficiency gains​ nydailyrecord.com. “A lawyer may not charge an hourly fee in excess of the time actually spent … and may not bill for time saved by using generative AI.”​ nydailyrecord.com If AI cuts a research task from 5 hours to 1, you can’t still charge 5 hours. The Bar suggests considering alternative fee arrangements to account for AI’s value, instead of hourly billing windfalls​ nydailyrecord.com. As for passing along AI tool costs: the Bar says you can’t charge the client for your AI subscription or usage unless it’s a reasonable charge and permitted by the fee agreement​ nydailyrecord.com. Finally, Virginia reminds lawyers to stay aware of any court rules about AI. Some courts (even outside Virginia) have begun requiring attorneys to certify that filings were checked for AI-generated falsehoods, or even prohibiting AI-drafted documents absent verification. Virginia’s guidance highlights that lawyers must comply with any such disclosure or anti-AI rules in whatever jurisdiction they are in​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com. Overall, the Virginia State Bar’s message is: use common sense and existing rules. Be transparent when needed, protect confidentiality, supervise and double-check AI outputs, bill fairly, and follow any new court requirements​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com. This short-form guidance was praised for being “streamlined” and adaptable as AI tools continue to change​ nydailyrecord.com.

(Source: Virginia State Bar AI Guidance via N.Y. Daily Record​ nydailyrecord.com nydailyrecord.com.)

District of Columbia Bar – Ethics Opinion 388 (September 2024)

The D.C. Bar issued Ethics Opinion 388: “Attorneys’ Use of Generative AI in Client Matters” in 2024 (the second half of the year)​ kaiserlaw.com. This opinion closely analyzes the ethical implications of lawyers using gen AI, using the well-known Mata v. Avianca incident as a teaching example​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com . It then organizes guidance under specific D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Key points: The opinion breaks its analysis into categories of duties​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com:

• Competence (Rule 1.1): D.C. reiterates that tech competence is part of a lawyer’s duty. Attorneys must “keep abreast of … practice [changes], including the benefits and risks of relevant technology.”​ kaiserlaw.com Before using AI, lawyers should understand how it works, what it does, and its potential dangers​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. The opinion vividly quotes a description of AI as “an omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you.”​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com In practical terms, D.C. lawyers must know that AI output can be very convincing but incorrect. The Mata/Avianca saga – where a lawyer unknowingly relied on a tool that “sometimes lies” – underscores the need for knowledge and caution​ dcbar.org dcbar.org.
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6): D.C.’s Rule 1.6(f) specifically requires lawyers to prevent unauthorized use of client info by third-party service providers​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. This applies to AI providers. Lawyers are instructed to ask themselves: “Will information I provide [to the AI] be visible to the AI provider or others? Will my input affect future answers for other users (potentially revealing my data)?”​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. If using an AI tool that sends data to an external server, the lawyer must ensure that data is protected. D.C. likely would advise using privacy-protective settings or choosing tools that allow opt-outs of data sharing, or obtaining client consent if needed. Essentially, treat AI like any outside vendor under Rule 5.3/1.6: do due diligence to ensure confidentiality is preserved​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com.
• Supervision (Rules 5.1 & 5.3): A lawyer must supervise both other lawyers and nonlawyers in the firm regarding AI use​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. This may entail firm policies: e.g., vetting which AI tools are approved and training staff to verify AI output for accuracy​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. If a subordinate attorney or paralegal uses AI, the supervising attorney should reasonably ensure they are doing so in compliance with all ethical duties (and correcting any mistakes). The opinion views AI as an extension of one’s team – requiring oversight.
• Candor to Tribunal & Fairness (Rules 3.3 and 3.4): Simply put, a lawyer cannot make false statements to a court or submit false evidence​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. D.C. notes the existing comment to Rule 3.3 already forbids knowingly misrepresenting legal authority. Opinion 388 makes clear this includes presenting AI-fabricated cases or quotes as if they were real​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. Even if the lawyer didn’t intend to lie, relying on AI without checking and thereby filing fake citations could violate the duty of candor (at least negligently, if not knowingly). The lesson: no courtroom use of AI content without verification. Also, under fairness to opposing party (3.4), one must not use AI to manipulate evidence or discovery unfairly.
• Fees (Rule 1.5): The D.C. Bar echoed the consensus on billing: if you charge hourly, you “may never charge a client for time not expended.”​ kaiserlaw.com Increased efficiency through AI cannot be used as an opportunity to overcharge. They cite a 1996 D.C. opinion which said that a lawyer who is more efficient than expected (perhaps through technology or expertise) can’t then bill extra hours that weren’t worked​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. The same principle applies now: time saved by AI is the client’s benefit, not the lawyer’s windfall. So if AI drafts a contract in 1 hour whereas manual drafting would take 5, the lawyer cannot bill 5 hours – only the 1 hour actually spent (or use a flat fee structure that the client agrees on, but not lie about hours).
• Client Files (Rule 1.16(d)): Interestingly, D.C. Opinion 388 touches on whether AI interactions should be retained as part of the client file upon termination​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. D.C. law requires returning the “entire file” to a client, including internal notes, unless they are purely administrative. The opinion suggests lawyers should consider saving important AI prompts or outputs used in the representation as part of the file material that may need to be provided to the client​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com. For example, if an attorney used an AI tool to generate a research memo or a draft letter that was then edited and sent to a client, the initial AI-generated text might be analogous to a draft or research note. This is a new facet many haven’t considered: how to handle AI-generated work product in terms of file retention.

In conclusion, D.C.’s Ethics Opinion 388 aligns with other jurisdictions while adding thoughtful details. It “recognizes AI may eventually greatly benefit the legal industry,” but in the meantime insists that lawyers “must be vigilant”​ kaiserlaw.com. The overarching theme is captured in the NPR quote: treat AI like an intern who needs close supervision kaiserlaw.com. Do not assume the AI is correct; double-check everything, maintain confidentiality, and use the tool wisely and transparently. D.C. lawyers were effectively told that generative AI is permissible to use, but only in a manner that fully preserves all ethical obligations as enumerated above​ kaiserlaw.com.

(Sources: D.C. Ethics Op. 388 via Kaiser summary​ kaiserlaw.com kaiserlaw.com.)

Specialty Bar and Licensing Bodies

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – Practice Guidance (2023–2024)

Beyond state bars, at least one lawyer licensing body has addressed AI: the USPTO, which regulates patent and trademark attorneys. In 2023 and 2024, the USPTO issued guidance on the use of AI by practitioners in proceedings before the Office. On April 10, 2024, the USPTO published a notice (and a Federal Register guidance document) concerning “the use of AI tools by parties and practitioners” before the USPTO​ uspto.gov uspto.gov. This followed an earlier internal guidance on Feb 6, 2024 for USPTO administrative tribunals​ uspto.gov.

Key points: The USPTO made clear that existing duties in its rules (37 C.F.R. and USPTO ethics rules) “apply regardless of how a submission is generated.”​ uspto.gov In other words, whether a patent application or brief is written by a human or with AI assistance, the attorney is fully responsible for compliance with all requirements. The guidance reminds practitioners of pertinent rules and “helps inform … the risks associated with AI” while giving suggestions to mitigate them​ uspto.gov. For example, patent attorneys have a duty of candor and truthfulness in dealings with the Office; using AI that produces inaccurate statements could violate that duty if not corrected. USPTO Director Kathi Vidal emphasized “the integrity of our proceedings” must be protected and that the USPTO encourages “safe and responsible use of AI” to benefit efficiency​ uspto.gov. But critically, lawyers and agents must ensure AI is not misused or left unchecked. The USPTO guidance likely points to rules akin to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: patent practitioners must make a reasonable inquiry that submissions (claims, arguments, prior art citations, etc.) are not frivolous or false, even if AI was used as a tool. It also addresses confidentiality and data security concerns: patent lawyers often handle sensitive technical data, so if they use AI for drafting or searching prior art, they must ensure they aren’t inadvertently disclosing invention details. The USPTO suggested mitigation steps such as: carefully choosing AI tools (perhaps ones that run locally or have strong confidentiality promises), verifying outputs (especially legal conclusions or prior art relevance), and staying updated as laws/regulations evolve in this area uspto.gov uspto.gov. In sum, the USPTO’s stance is aligned with the bar associations’: AI can expand access and efficiency, but practitioners must use it responsibly. They explicitly note that AI’s use “does not change” the attorney’s obligations to avoid delay, avoid unnecessary cost, and uphold the quality of submissions​ uspto.gov. The patent bar was cautioned by the USPTO, much as litigators were by the courts, that any mistakes made by AI will be treated as the practitioner’s mistakes. The Office will continue to “listen to stakeholders” and may update policies as needed​ uspto.gov, but for now practitioners should follow this guidance and existing rules.

(Source: USPTO Director’s announcement​ uspto.gov uspto.gov.)

Other Specialty Groups

Other specialty lawyer groups and bar associations have engaged in policy discussions about AI (for example, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and various sections of the ABA have offered CLE courses or informal tips on AI use). While these may not be formal ethics opinions, they echo the themes above: maintain client confidentiality, verify AI output, and remember that technology doesn’t diminish a lawyer’s own duties.

In summary, across national, state, and local bodies in the U.S., a clear consensus has emerged: Lawyers may use generative AI tools in their practice, but they must do so cautiously and in full compliance with their ethical obligations. Key recommendations include obtaining client consent if confidential data will be involved​ jdsupra.com nydailyrecord.com, understanding the technology’s limits (no blind trust in AI)​ nysba.org kaiserlaw.com, thoroughly vetting and supervising AI outputs​ ncbar.gov kaiserlaw.com, and ensuring that AI-driven efficiency benefits the client (through accurate work and fair fees)​ lawnext.com kaiserlaw.com. All the formal opinions – from the ABA to state bars like California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, D.C., and others – converge on the message that the lawyer is ultimately responsible for everything their generative AI tool does or produces. Generative AI can assist with research, drafting, and more, but it remains “a tool that assists but does not replace legal expertise and analysis.”​ lawnext.com. As the Pennsylvania opinion neatly put it, in more colloquial terms: don’t be stupid – a lawyer cannot abdicate common sense and professional judgment to an AI​ lawnext.com. By following these ethics guidelines, lawyers can harness AI’s benefits (greater efficiency and capability) while upholding their duties to clients, courts, and the justice system.

Sources: Formal ethics opinions and guidance from the ABA and numerous bar associations, including ABA Formal Op. 512​ jenkinslaw.org, State Bar of California guidance​ jdsupra.com, Florida Bar Op. 24-1​ jdsupra.com, New Jersey Supreme Court AI Guidelines​ jdsupra.com, New York City Bar Op. 2024-5​ nydailyrecord.com, Pennsylvania Bar & Philadelphia Bar Joint Op.​ lawnext.com, Kentucky Bar Op. E-457​ techlawcrossroads.com, North Carolina Formal Op. 2024-1​ ncbar.gov, D.C. Bar Op. 388​ kaiserlaw.com, and USPTO practitioner guidance​ uspto.gov. Each of these sources provides detailed discussion of ethical concerns and best practices for using generative AI in law.