Can attorneys use AI in your state? Yes — here's where each one stands.
No US jurisdiction prohibits attorneys from using AI. The question every bar answers the same way is how: with competence, confidentiality, verification, and supervision — exactly the duties CounselRelay's attorney-approval design is built around. Status of all 51 jurisdictions, verified July 30, 2026.
24
Formal guidance issuedThe state bar or supreme court has issued formal guidance or rules on attorney AI use — universally permitting it with professional-duty safeguards.
15
Task force / interimA task force, committee, or interim policy is active; formal attorney guidance is still developing.
12
No state-specific guidanceNo AI-specific state guidance located — ABA Formal Opinion 512 and the existing rules of professional conduct apply.
| Jurisdiction | Status | Year | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Alaska (AK) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Ethics Opinion 2025-1 permits AI with competence, confidentiality, and client-consent duties |
| Arizona (AZ) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Court steering committee and state bar issued ethical best-practices guidance for AI |
| Arkansas (AR) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Supreme Court Administrative Order 25 and Rule 5.3 amendments govern lawyers' AI use |
| California (CA) | Formal guidance issued | 2026 | State Bar practical guidance (updated 2026); AI-related rule amendments proposed for comment |
| Colorado (CO) | Formal guidance issued | 2026 | Supreme Court rule amendments confirm technology use doesn't diminish professional duties |
| Connecticut (CT) | Task force / interim | — | Bar task force studying AI; no formal ethics opinion issued |
| Delaware (DE) | Task force / interim | 2024 | Judiciary adopted interim AI policy; no attorney-specific ethics opinion |
| District of Columbia (DC) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Ethics Opinion 388 permits AI with confidentiality, candor, and supervision duties |
| Florida (FL) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Opinion 24-1 permits AI with consent, oversight, billing, and advertising safeguards |
| Georgia (GA) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Judicial Council AI committee's 2025 report recommends governance; no ethics opinion |
| Hawaii (HI) | Task force / interim | 2024 | Judiciary AI committee studying recommendations; no formal guidance released |
| Idaho (ID) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Illinois (IL) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Supreme Court AI policy plus ARDC implementation guide authorize responsible AI use |
| Indiana (IN) | Task force / interim | 2026 | Supreme Court AI committee active; court toolkit issued, attorney guidance pending |
| Iowa (IA) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Bar and judiciary AI committees formed; no guidance published yet |
| Kansas (KS) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Supreme Court ad hoc AI committee studying policies; no opinion yet |
| Kentucky (KY) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Opinion E-457 permits AI with competence, confidentiality, and disclosure considerations |
| Louisiana (LA) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Supreme Court Technology Commission guidelines urge verification and supervision of AI output |
| Maine (ME) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Maryland (MD) | Task force / interim | 2025 | MSBA task force advisory covers verification, confidentiality, and billing; not binding |
| Massachusetts (MA) | No state-specific guidance | — | No attorney-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Michigan (MI) | Formal guidance issued | 2023 | Ethics opinion JI-155 requires judicial AI competence; bar FAQs guide attorneys |
| Minnesota (MN) | Task force / interim | 2024 | MSBA working group report applies existing rules; no formal ethics opinion |
| Mississippi (MS) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Ethics Opinion 267 permits AI with competence, confidentiality, and verification duties |
| Missouri (MO) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Advisory opinion permits AI use with confidentiality and verification safeguards |
| Montana (MT) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Nebraska (NE) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Nevada (NV) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| New Hampshire (NH) | Task force / interim | 2024 | Bar ethics committee articles give informal guidance; special AI committee formed |
| New Jersey (NJ) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Supreme Court preliminary guidelines apply existing ethics rules to lawyers' AI use |
| New Mexico (NM) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Formal ethics advisory opinion permits AI with competence and confidentiality duties |
| New York (NY) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | City Bar formal opinions and NYSBA task force report guide AI use |
| North Carolina (NC) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 permits supervised, competent, secure AI use |
| North Dakota (ND) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Ohio (OH) | Formal guidance issued | 2026 | Supreme Court board's 2026 AI ethics guide covers lawyers and judges |
| Oklahoma (OK) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Bar journal ethics guidance urges citation verification; no formal opinion |
| Oregon (OR) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Formal Opinion 2025-205 permits AI with competence, confidentiality, supervision duties |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 lists twelve points of responsible AI use |
| Rhode Island (RI) | Formal guidance issued | 2026 | Supreme Court amended competence rule and adopted interim generative-AI guidelines |
| South Carolina (SC) | Task force / interim | 2025 | Chief Justice interim policy restricts judiciary AI use pending further study |
| South Dakota (SD) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Tennessee (TN) | Task force / interim | — | Bar AI task force studying issues; no formal ethics opinion |
| Texas (TX) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Opinion 705 requires competence, confidentiality, verification when using generative AI |
| Utah (UT) | Task force / interim | 2023 | Bar journal ethics commentary only; no formal AI opinion issued |
| Vermont (VT) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Virginia (VA) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Court-approved LEO 1901 addresses reasonable fees when using generative AI |
| Washington (WA) | Formal guidance issued | 2025 | Advisory Opinion 202505 applies competence, confidentiality, and candor duties to AI |
| West Virginia (WV) | Formal guidance issued | 2024 | L.E.O. 24-01 permits AI with competence, confidentiality, and candor duties |
| Wisconsin (WI) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
| Wyoming (WY) | No state-specific guidance | — | No state-specific guidance located; ABA Op. 512 and general ethics rules apply |
The common thread — and how CounselRelay answers it
Every formal opinion issued so far lands on the same requirements: understand the technology (competence), protect client information (confidentiality), verify AI output before relying on it (candor/diligence), and supervise it like you would a non-lawyer assistant (Rules 5.1/5.3). CounselRelay was designed around that exact framework — every AI output is a proposal an attorney reviews, client data is processed under no-training terms with database-level isolation, and the audit log documents the supervision.
Compiled from state bar and supreme court publications, ABA materials, and legal-AI regulatory trackers; classifications involve judgment where a state's guidance is informal or judiciary-focused. Provided for general reference only — not legal advice and not a substitute for your jurisdiction's current rules. Spot an update we missed? Tell usand we'll verify and correct it.