AI rules by state
AI rules for lawyers, state by state
What you can and cannot do with AI as a lawyer depends on your state. This is a plain-English, sourced answer for each one: whether you must disclose AI use, what your state bar's ethics guidance says, which sanctions cases are on record, the competence rule, and any CLE requirement. Every legal claim links to its source and carries a verified date.
Scroll to compare across columns →
| State | Disclosure required? | Governing guidance | Sanctions on record | AI / tech CLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Case-by-case | COPRAC Practical Guidance (2023) | Noland v. Land of the Free (2025), $10,000 | 1 technology hour / 3 yrs |
| New York | No | NYC Bar Formal Op. 2024-5 | Mata v. Avianca (2023), $5,000 | 1 cybersecurity hour; no AI rule |
| Texas | No | Ethics Opinion 705 (2025) | Gauthier v. Goodyear (2024), $2,000 | No tech or AI requirement |
| Florida | No | Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (2024) | In re Neusom (2024), one-year suspension | 3 technology hours / 3 yrs |
| Pennsylvania | Case-by-case | Joint Formal Op. 2024-200 (2024) | Saber v. Navy Federal (2025), issues waived | No tech or AI requirement |
| New Jersey | No | NJ Supreme Court Guidelines (2024) | NJ attorney sanctioned in E.D. Pa. (2026), $5,000 | 1 tech/AI credit from 2027 |
| Illinois | No | IL Supreme Court AI Policy (2025) | Appellate sanction (2025) | No tech or AI requirement |
| Kentucky | Case-by-case | KBA Ethics Op. E-457 (2024) | None in state courts | No tech or AI requirement |
| North Carolina | Case-by-case | 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 | None final (case pending) | 1 technology hour / yr |
| Massachusetts | Case-by-case | No formal opinion; RPCs apply | Smith v. Farwell (2024), $2,000 | No mandatory CLE |
| Washington | Case-by-case | WSBA Advisory Op. 2025-05 | None in state courts | No tech or AI requirement |
| Virginia | No | Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 (2025) | None on record | No tech or AI requirement |
| Michigan | Case-by-case | SBM AI FAQs (2024) | Reported 2026 (verify) | No mandatory CLE |
| Minnesota | Case-by-case | MSBA AI Working Group (2024) | Nuvola v. Wright (2025), $1,000 | No tech or AI requirement |
| Ohio | Case-by-case | Board of Prof. Conduct AI Guide (2026) | None in state courts (federal: S.D. Ohio) | No tech or AI requirement |
| Arizona | Case-by-case | AZ Courts AI Best Practices (2024) | None in state courts (federal: D. Ariz.) | No tech or AI requirement |
| Colorado | No | RPC 1.1 amended for AI (2026) | People v. Crabill (2023), suspension | No tech or AI requirement |
| Utah | Case-by-case | Utah State Bar AI opinion (2024) | Garner v. Kadince (2025), fees + $1,000 | No tech or AI requirement |
| New Mexico | Case-by-case | State Bar of NM AI opinion (2024) | None on record | No tech or AI requirement |
| Mississippi | Case-by-case | Bar Ethics Opinion 267 (2024) | None on record | No tech or AI requirement |
| Missouri | Case-by-case | Informal Opinion 2024-11 | Kruse v. Karlen (2024), $10,000 | No tech or AI requirement |
| New Hampshire | No | NHBA AI guidance (2024) | None on record | No tech or AI requirement |
| West Virginia | Yes | Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (2024) | None on record | No tech or AI requirement |
| Oklahoma | Case-by-case | No dedicated opinion | OBA v. Reeves (2026), public reprimand | No tech or AI requirement |
| District of Columbia | No | DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 (2024) | None on record | No mandatory CLE |
In a state not listed above?
Many states have not issued their own AI ethics opinion. The national framework and the duties that apply everywhere are on one page.
AI rules for lawyers in states without specific guidance →More states are being added. Each page ships only once every block is filled or honestly marked, with a live source for every legal claim.
These pages are general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with your state bar and the assigned court before relying on anything here.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in real authority, keeps client data out of training, and keeps a record of the work.
Book a Demo