Ethics
State-bar AI ethics opinions: a 2026 explainer
What California, New York, Florida, Texas, and DC have said about lawyers using generative AI — and what the guidance means for your day-to-day.
The ABA gave us the national framework in Formal Opinion 512. But you're admitted in a state, and several state bars have now issued their own AI guidance. The themes rhyme — competence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, honest billing — but the specifics are worth knowing. Here's the lay of the land in five key jurisdictions, in plain English. Always read the source guidance for your own jurisdiction; this is an explainer, not advice.
California
The State Bar of California issued Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law (2023) — one of the earliest. It stresses confidentiality (don't input client information into a tool that lacks adequate confidentiality protections), competence, and not charging for time the AI saved. See our California page.
New York
The New York State Bar Association's Task Force on Artificial Intelligence published a substantial report and guidelines (2024) covering risks, benefits, and recommendations for responsible adoption. The throughline is the same duties — competence, confidentiality, supervision — applied to AI. See our New York page.
Florida
The Florida Bar issued Ethics Opinion 24-1 (2024) on lawyers' use of generative AI, addressing confidentiality, oversight of the work product, billing, and advertising. It's one of the more concrete state opinions. See our Florida page.
Texas
The State Bar of Texas formed a Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law (TRAIL) to study AI's impact on the profession and develop guidance. See our Texas page.
Illinois
The Illinois Supreme Court adopted a Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective 2025) addressing AI use in the courts and by practitioners. See our Illinois page.
The common thread — and what to do Monday
- Protect confidences. Use a tool with a real no-training posture; don't paste client facts into a free consumer tier.
- Verify output. Validate every citation against a real database before filing.
- Bill honestly. Charge time spent, not time saved.
- Disclose when reasonably necessary. An engagement-letter AI clause is the simplest way.
How Draftiro maps to the guidance
Draftiro is built around exactly these duties: a contractual paid-Gemini no-training posture (your data never trains AI models), CourtListener citation validation with statutes flagged "unchecked," an audit-logged conflict check, and an "AI-assisted" time entry on every exchange. We track these opinions on our AI ethics page.
This article was published by the Draftiro team and reviewed by our attorney advisors. See our team and how we track AI ethics opinions.
Try Draftiro free