# State Bar Guidance on Generative AI, by Jurisdiction Published and updated 2026-10-29 · RuleX editorial team · United States · American English California, Florida, New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina and the District of Columbia have each issued official guidance on lawyers’ use of generative AI since 2023. All nine converge on verification, confidentiality diligence, supervision and reasonable fees; they differ on consent and disclosure. Build one firm protocol from them, then keep the review record with the matter in RuleX. ## Nine jurisdictions have issued guidance, and they converge on four duties. Bar associations, ethics committees and supreme courts across the country have applied their own rules of professional conduct to generative AI. This guide reads nine of those sources in their official text: California, Florida, New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina and the District of Columbia. Each section gives the issuer, the date and what the document says, so you can open it and confirm the point for your own license. Four duties recur in every source: verify the output before relying on it or filing it, protect client information by understanding how the tool handles it, supervise the lawyers and staff who use the tool, and bill honestly. The differences lie in how each authority treats client consent, disclosure to clients and disclosure to courts. A lawyer licensed in several jurisdictions can use the common core as the baseline and add the local points. ## California, Florida and New York City set the template. California. The State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued its Practical Guidance in November 2023. The 2026 edition replaces the original and, at the request of the California Supreme Court, addresses agentic AI. It states that a lawyer must not input confidential client information into a generative AI solution that may present material risks to confidentiality or security absent informed client consent, and that reasonable efforts require more than reliance on generalized marketing assurances. For agentic systems, it states that lawyers must ensure no document is transmitted to a court without lawyer review and approval, and it treats subscription fees for tools with general office functionality as overhead. Florida. The Florida Bar’s Ethics Opinion 24-1, dated January 19, 2024, concludes that lawyers may use generative AI but must protect client confidentiality, provide accurate and competent services, avoid improper billing practices and comply with advertising restrictions. It recommends obtaining the affected client’s informed consent before using a third-party generative AI program if doing so would disclose confidential information, and it asks lawyers to learn whether a program is self-learning. Generative AI chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must disclose that they are AI programs and not lawyers or employees of the firm. New York City. The New York City Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee issued Formal Opinion 2024-5 on August 7, 2024. It follows the format of California’s guidance, covers rules from 1.1 through 8.4 and describes its approach as providing guardrails rather than hard-and-fast restrictions or new rules. ## New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois speak to the client and the court directly. New Jersey. The Supreme Court’s Notice to the Bar of January 24, 2024 adopted preliminary guidelines from its Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. They state that the core ethical responsibilities in the Rules of Professional Conduct are unchanged by AI and that a lawyer must check and verify all information generated by AI. They also state that the rules do not require a lawyer to disclose the use of AI, though AI use never excuses false or misleading content, and that a lawyer must tell a client about AI use if the client asks or if the client cannot make an informed decision without knowing. Pennsylvania. Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 comes from the Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee. It lists the obligations to make AI-generated content truthful and accurate, to verify citations, to safeguard client information, to watch for conflicts of interest, to communicate with clients about AI use and to ensure that AI-related expenses are reasonable and disclosed. Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court announced its Policy on Artificial Intelligence on December 18, 2024, effective January 1, 2025. It provides that the use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges and court staff may be expected, should not be discouraged and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards, and that disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading. Attorneys remain accountable for their final work product and must review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding. ## Texas, North Carolina and the District of Columbia add billing and data-handling detail. Texas. Opinion 705 of the Professional Ethics Committee, dated February 2025, applies the Texas Disciplinary Rules to generative AI. It lists four precautions drawn from the committee’s cloud-computing opinion: understand how the technology works, review and potentially renegotiate the terms of service, learn the tool’s data-security protections and train lawyers and staff. It states that lawyers should verify every response and may not charge hourly fees for time “saved” by using generative AI, while per-use charges can be collected as expenses at the amount actually incurred. North Carolina. 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, adopted November 1, 2024, answers six questions. It concludes that lawyers may use AI competently, securely and under supervision; that lawyers should avoid inputting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources; that a lawyer who signs a pleading remains responsible for it; that delegating substantive tasks to an AI tool is akin to outsourcing and requires the client’s advance informed consent; and that a lawyer who finishes in one hour what once took three bills one hour. The committee leaves attorney-client privilege to the law, noting it is a legal question outside the Rules of Professional Conduct. District of Columbia. Ethics Opinion 388, “Attorneys’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters” (April 2024), addresses competence, confidentiality, supervision and fees. It asks lawyers to determine whether a product will save the information they provide and whether their interactions affect the answers later users receive, and it restates that an hourly lawyer may charge only for hours actually expended. ## Where the authorities differ: consent, disclosure to clients and disclosure to courts. On client consent, Florida recommends informed consent before a third-party program receives confidential information, North Carolina advises against entering client-specific information into publicly available tools and treats substantive delegation as requiring advance informed consent, and Texas advises lawyers to consider informing clients and to secure consent where needed. California’s guidance requires informed consent where a tool presents material risks to confidentiality or security. Opinion 512 sets the national reference point for self-learning tools. On disclosure to clients, New Jersey and North Carolina describe a fact-based duty rather than a blanket rule; New Jersey requires disclosure when the client asks or cannot decide without knowing. On disclosure to courts, Illinois states that a pleading should not require it and New Jersey states that the rules do not require it, while individual courts and judges adopt their own requirements. The court-rules guide in this series lists those verified requirements. Check the local rule and the assigned judge’s orders every time. ## Turn the guidance into a one-page firm protocol and keep it with the matter. A one-page protocol makes the nine sources usable. It names the approved tools, states what categories of client information may be entered and under what consent, assigns a reviewer for every filing and sets how time and expenses are billed. Supervising lawyers can attach it to engagement letters and training. In RuleX, create the matter, upload up to twenty documents and open the sources from each answer. The tasks, dates and log inside the case hold the protocol checks, and the Word draft stays editable while you review it. Start the 7-day free trial, add a real matter and open the sources from the answer. 1. List the jurisdictions where you are licensed and open each official source above. 2. Copy the shared duties into your protocol: verify, protect, supervise, bill actual time. 3. Add each jurisdiction’s consent and disclosure points as short, dated notes. 4. Record the approved tools and the information categories each one may receive. 5. Assign the reviewer who confirms every authority before a filing is signed. 6. Review the protocol when a source is updated, as California did in 2026. ## Frequently asked questions ### Which states have official guidance on lawyers’ use of generative AI? This guide reads official guidance from California, Florida, New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina and the District of Columbia, each linked to its issuer. Other jurisdictions have issued guidance as well, so check your own state bar’s ethics page for the current list. ### Do all states require informed consent before I use generative AI? The sources address consent in different terms. Florida recommends informed consent before a third-party program receives confidential information, California requires it for tools that present material confidentiality risks, North Carolina requires advance informed consent when substantive tasks are delegated to a tool, and Opinion 512 requires it for self-learning tools. Apply the rule of your jurisdiction. ### Must I disclose AI use to the court? Disclosure depends on the court and the judge. Illinois’s Supreme Court policy states that disclosure should not be required in a pleading, and New Jersey’s guidelines state that the rules do not require disclosure, while some federal courts and judges require it. Review the local rules and standing orders for the specific court. ### Can I bill hourly for work an AI tool completes faster? Bill the time you actually spend, including prompting and review. Texas Opinion 705, North Carolina’s 2024 FEO 1, D.C. Opinion 388 and Florida Opinion 24-1 each state that efficiency may not inflate the hours billed. A flat fee set at a reasonable level is an alternative with the client’s consent. ### How does RuleX help me follow my state’s guidance? RuleX keeps the documents, the sources, the draft and the matter log in one case. Open each source from the answer, edit the Word draft and record the review beside the file, which gives you the verification record each state’s guidance expects. ## Sources - [State Bar of California — Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law (2026 edition)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf) - [The Florida Bar — Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024)](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) - [New York City Bar — Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 7, 2024)](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law/) - [New Jersey Courts — Preliminary Guidelines on New Jersey Lawyers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence (Notice to the Bar, January 24, 2024)](https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf) - [Philadelphia Bar Association — Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 with the Pennsylvania Bar Association](https://philadelphiabar.org/?pg=ThePhiladelphiaLawyerBlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=111283) - [Texas Professional Ethics Committee — Opinion 705 (February 2025)](https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/) - [Illinois Supreme Court — Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective January 1, 2025)](https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf) - [North Carolina State Bar — 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (adopted November 1, 2024)](https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/) - [D.C. Bar — Ethics Opinion 388 (April 2024)](https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388) ## Work on the matter in RuleX [Create a U.S. account](https://rulex.org/united-states?register=1) · [U.S. pricing](https://rulex.org/united-states/pricing) ## Representation This Markdown represents the same public page. Browsers receive HTML at its canonical URL. - **Canonical (HTML):** https://rulex.org/united-states/guides/state-bar-guidance-generative-ai - **This representation:** https://rulex.org/united-states/guides/state-bar-guidance-generative-ai.md - **Home:** https://rulex.org/united-states - **llms.txt:** https://rulex.org/llms.txt