Jurisdiction
United States
Federal law, federal courts and federal agencies, plus the ABA Model Rules as a national baseline. State professional-conduct rules, state courts and most private-law topics (family, property, estates, conveyancing, personal injury, construction liens) stay with the state where the matter is. US states are not modelled as separate jurisdictions on this site yet. Open the rules of the state of admission and the court on the file. Recorded 10 Oct 2026: Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters; Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence; ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512. New York 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective 1 June 2026) and the Unified Court System interim AI policy. New York City Bar Formal Opinions 2024-5 and 2026-2. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 and Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 stay the sources already cited on this page. No second source row was added. New Jersey preliminary AI guidelines (25 January 2024), Pennsylvania Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 and the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy (effective 1 January 2025). Trackers of individual federal judges’ standing orders on generative AI. By September 2026 the pattern had shifted from judge-by-judge standing orders toward statewide rules, and reported AI hallucination cases had passed 2,000.
US lawyers are admitted and disciplined by a state (or the District of Columbia). Most states use a version of the ABA Model Rules. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) is the national AI ethics baseline: Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3. State bars add guidance, for example California (2026), Florida 24-1, NYC Bar 2024-5, Texas 705, D.C. 388, Kentucky E-457, New Jersey and Pennsylvania 2024-200. The rules of your admitting state and your court bind you. Federal courts apply FRCP 11 to every signed filing. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) sanctioned fabricated ChatGPT citations. Some judges require an AI certificate. Proposed FRE 707 was not advanced on 7 May 2026. No general federal privacy law covers client data. Start with Rule 1.6, then HIPAA, GLBA or state law such as the CCPA (as amended by the CPRA). Colorado's SB24-205 was repealed and re-enacted by SB26-189 (signed 14 May 2026); ADMT rules start 1 January 2027.
Choose a practice area AI practice notes by Australian court AI rules tracker by Australian court and body
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Related jurisdictions
AI instruments
CourtsRegulatorsLaw societies and barsLegislationOther instrumentsAI practice notes by Australian court Practice areas
Courts
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy on Artificial Intelligence | Illinois Supreme Court | effective (per PDF title) · Effective 2025-01-01 | Existing professional and judicial conduct rules apply fully; attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants are accountable for their work product; no disclosure mandate.
| Illinois Supreme Court |
Regulators
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512Opinion 512 itself is already in the database; add only as a supporting source. | American Bar Association | released · Effective 2024-07-29 | Release accompanying Opinion 512 (already in database): competence, confidentiality (MR 1.6), fees (MR 1.5). | American Bar Association |
Law societies and bars
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of LawThe linked page is Formal Opinion 2026-2, not 2024-5. Confirm 2024-5 on nycbar.org before reliance. | New York City Bar Association | 2024 (per opinion number) | No confidential information into open AI systems without consent; verify outputs; do not bill hourly for time saved. | New York City Bar Association |
| Formal Opinion 2026-2: AI for recording, transcribing and summarising non-client conversations | New York City Bar Association | per opinion number (2026) | No surreptitious recording (Rule 8.4); disclose intent to record; manage third-party AI note-takers and access to summaries. | New York City Bar Association |
| Ethics Opinion 24-1 (generative AI)Checked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in the United States jurisdiction overview and four area-note source rows. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://clearbrief.com/legal-ai-resources/florida, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source. | The Florida Bar | approved by Board of Governors · Effective 2024-01-19 | Treats AI like a non-lawyer assistant (Rule 4-5.3); fees must be reasonable (Rule 4-1.5); chatbots must identify as non-human. | The Florida Bar |
| Opinion 705 (generative AI)Checked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in a United States area-note source row. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://www.texasbarpractice.com/ethics-professional-responsibility/, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source. | State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee | issued · Effective 2025-02 | Competence (Rule 1.01), confidentiality, supervision and independent verification of AI output. | State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee |
| Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI) | Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association | per opinion number (2024) | Lawyers must understand AI, verify all citations and must not make false or misleading submissions. | Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association |
| Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters | District of Columbia Bar | not stated on page read | Addresses candor to tribunals, compliance with court AI orders (Rule 3.4(c)) and reasonable fees (Rule 1.5) when using GenAI. | District of Columbia Bar |
| Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence | New York State Bar Association | month of report · Effective 2024-04 | Recommendations for AI in legal practice, including education of judges, lawyers and regulators. | New York State Bar Association |
Legislation
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 NYCRR Part 161 (AI in court submissions), AO/75/26Secondary source (Abramson Legal); confirm on nycourts.gov. | New York State Unified Court System | effective; adopted 25 Mar 2026 (secondary source) · Effective 2026-06-01 | Statewide rule for all UCS courts, civil and criminal: verification duty applies whether or not AI is used; s 161.4 lets a judge add requirements.
| New York State Unified Court System |
| California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858) | California Legislature | 2026-09-30 · Effective 2027-01-01 | Section 6068.1 was added to the Business and Professions Code by SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858). The Governor approved it on 30 September 2026, and it applies from 1 January 2027. It applies to California attorneys (lawyers) under the State Bar Act. An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. An attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems where access is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorised by the attorney who are bound to protect it. The attorney must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output. The attorney must also disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
| California Legislature |
| California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) – Personal verification of citations in court filings (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858) | California Legislature | 2026-09-30 · Effective 2027-01-01 | SB 574 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that a brief, pleading, motion or other paper filed in any California court must not contain citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. This includes citations provided by generative AI. It binds lawyers who submit filings. Breaches are subject to the section 128.7 sanctions framework, but monetary sanctions for a breach of paragraph (b)(2) may not be awarded against a represented party. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
| California Legislature |
Other instruments
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Guidelines on the use of AI by New Jersey lawyers | Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on AI | issued · Effective 2024-01-25 | No new obligations; highlights RPCs: lawyers responsible for submissions, must not submit false content, must secure AI systems.
| Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on AI |
| Federal judge standing orders on generative AI (trackers) | Various US federal judges | live trackers | Law360 and Ropes & Gray track individual standing orders requiring certification or disclosure of AI use (e.g. a W.D.N.C. order).
| Various US federal judges |
Every stored instrument
This is the catalogue for United States. An instrument appears under “Rules that apply” only when you name the court or tribunal, or say that no court is involved.
| Instrument | Issuer | Date on page | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 NYCRR Part 161 (AI in court submissions), AO/75/26Secondary source (Abramson Legal); confirm on nycourts.gov. | New York State Unified Court System | effective; adopted 25 Mar 2026 (secondary source) · Effective 2026-06-01 | Statewide rule for all UCS courts, civil and criminal: verification duty applies whether or not AI is used; s 161.4 lets a judge add requirements.
| New York State Unified Court System |
| Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of LawThe linked page is Formal Opinion 2026-2, not 2024-5. Confirm 2024-5 on nycbar.org before reliance. | New York City Bar Association | 2024 (per opinion number) | No confidential information into open AI systems without consent; verify outputs; do not bill hourly for time saved. | New York City Bar Association |
| Formal Opinion 2026-2: AI for recording, transcribing and summarising non-client conversations | New York City Bar Association | per opinion number (2026) | No surreptitious recording (Rule 8.4); disclose intent to record; manage third-party AI note-takers and access to summaries. | New York City Bar Association |
| Ethics Opinion 24-1 (generative AI)Checked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in the United States jurisdiction overview and four area-note source rows. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://clearbrief.com/legal-ai-resources/florida, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source. | The Florida Bar | approved by Board of Governors · Effective 2024-01-19 | Treats AI like a non-lawyer assistant (Rule 4-5.3); fees must be reasonable (Rule 4-1.5); chatbots must identify as non-human. | The Florida Bar |
| Opinion 705 (generative AI)Checked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in a United States area-note source row. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://www.texasbarpractice.com/ethics-professional-responsibility/, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source. | State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee | issued · Effective 2025-02 | Competence (Rule 1.01), confidentiality, supervision and independent verification of AI output. | State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee |
| Preliminary Guidelines on the use of AI by New Jersey lawyers | Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on AI | issued · Effective 2024-01-25 | No new obligations; highlights RPCs: lawyers responsible for submissions, must not submit false content, must secure AI systems.
| Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on AI |
| Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI) | Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association | per opinion number (2024) | Lawyers must understand AI, verify all citations and must not make false or misleading submissions. | Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association |
| Policy on Artificial Intelligence | Illinois Supreme Court | effective (per PDF title) · Effective 2025-01-01 | Existing professional and judicial conduct rules apply fully; attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants are accountable for their work product; no disclosure mandate.
| Illinois Supreme Court |
| Federal judge standing orders on generative AI (trackers) | Various US federal judges | live trackers | Law360 and Ropes & Gray track individual standing orders requiring certification or disclosure of AI use (e.g. a W.D.N.C. order).
| Various US federal judges |
| Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters | District of Columbia Bar | not stated on page read | Addresses candor to tribunals, compliance with court AI orders (Rule 3.4(c)) and reasonable fees (Rule 1.5) when using GenAI. | District of Columbia Bar |
| Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence | New York State Bar Association | month of report · Effective 2024-04 | Recommendations for AI in legal practice, including education of judges, lawyers and regulators. | New York State Bar Association |
| ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512Opinion 512 itself is already in the database; add only as a supporting source. | American Bar Association | released · Effective 2024-07-29 | Release accompanying Opinion 512 (already in database): competence, confidentiality (MR 1.6), fees (MR 1.5). | American Bar Association |
| California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858) | California Legislature | 2026-09-30 · Effective 2027-01-01 | Section 6068.1 was added to the Business and Professions Code by SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858). The Governor approved it on 30 September 2026, and it applies from 1 January 2027. It applies to California attorneys (lawyers) under the State Bar Act. An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. An attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems where access is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorised by the attorney who are bound to protect it. The attorney must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output. The attorney must also disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
| California Legislature |
| California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) – Personal verification of citations in court filings (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858) | California Legislature | 2026-09-30 · Effective 2027-01-01 | SB 574 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that a brief, pleading, motion or other paper filed in any California court must not contain citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. This includes citations provided by generative AI. It binds lawyers who submit filings. Breaches are subject to the section 128.7 sanctions framework, but monetary sanctions for a breach of paragraph (b)(2) may not be awarded against a represented party. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
| California Legislature |
Before the work starts
| Topic | Guidance |
|---|---|
| Define the matter | Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work. |
| Verify the authorities | Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference. |
| Check the filing requirements | Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing. |
| Jurisdiction | Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example. |
| What to open first |
|
| Court and tribunal AI rules |
|
| Professional-conduct rules |
|
| Privacy and confidentiality |
|
| Review checklist |
|
| Regulator and bar guidance beyond the ethics opinions |
|
Checks to carry into the matter
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.
What changes in United States
| Practice area | What changes here | Open |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution | Open each authority in a reporter or official database Sign only what you can certify under Rule 11 Do not ask another tool whether cites are real; that does not satisfy Mata or Opinion 512 | Open |
| Insolvency, Restructuring & Bankruptcy | File in federal bankruptcy court Do not use Corporations Act or Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) forms Open the current Code section and local rules, including any AI standing order | Open |
| Anti-Discrimination & Industrial Relations | Apply the EEOC position (April 2024): federal discrimination laws cover AI in these activities Open the current EEOC resources and the statute Check that any 2023 EEOC document is still live | Open |
| Family Law | Confirm which state's family law governs Keep protected addresses, medical information and children's identifiers out of public tools Apply Rule 1.6 and California's guidance on confidentiality | Open |
| Intellectual Property — Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs | Sign the response yourself, as the USPTO notice (11 April 2024) requires Review every statement: filing certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 Do not delegate the duty of candor (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.56, 11.303) | Open |
| Privacy, Data Protection & Cyber | Name the statute that applies; there is no general federal privacy law Open the California AG CCPA page and the HHS HIPAA page Open Colorado SB26-189 if consequential decisions are in scope | Open |
| Taxation | Check the advice rests on reasonable assumptions (IRS OPR 2026-19) Authenticate citations, calculations and forecasts Keep return information out of public tools (IRC §§ 6713, 7216) | Open |
| Immigration & Migration Law | Apply PM 25-40 (8 August 2025): no ban and no mandatory AI disclosure Check the judge's standing orders Verify every citation: fake citations can lead to discipline (8 C.F.R. § 1003.102) | Open |
| Trust accounting & handling client money | Keep a separate account and complete records (Rule 1.15) Confirm each disbursement yourself or through a supervised person following procedure Do not let the tool send money | Open |
| Confidentiality & client information | Default to no for anything relating to the representation Allow input only if vendor terms, Rule 1.6 and any sector statute are satisfied Apply Opinion 512 and the Florida, California, Texas and D.C. opinions | Open |
| Costs, billing & litigation funding | Bill for work done (Rule 1.5 and Opinion 512) Do not bill time not spent (Florida 24-1, California) Do not mark up AI overhead without the required agreement | Open |
| Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools | Check UPL, advertising and confidentiality risks (Opinion 512, Florida 24-1) Do not let an agentic tool give advice without review From 1 January 2027 (Colorado), do not present outputs as 'licensed professional services' | Open |
| Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents | Apply existing FRE Articles 7 and 9 Do not cite proposed FRE 707 as in force; it was not recommended for action on 7 May 2026 Note that deepfake rules remain under study | Open |
| AI decision systems | Apply the EEOC position: discrimination laws cover AI in employment decisions Check Colorado SB26-189 duties, which start 1 January 2027 Do not certify 'compliance' from a generated checklist | Open |
| Residential Conveyancing & Property | Apply state law; do not import an Australian statute or form Remove any PEXA or FIRB step Apply Rule 1.6 to identity documents and contracts in any tool | Open |
| Construction & Infrastructure | Do not use an Australian SOP form Open the state lien or prompt-pay statute and the contract Verify every generated statutory reference (Formal Opinion 512) | Open |
| Personal Injury & Compensation | Apply the state's tort and workers' compensation law Check the contingency fee under Rule 1.5; fees must stay reasonable when tools cut time Treat medical records in any tool as covered by HIPAA | Open |
| Technology, Media & Telecommunications / IT Contracts | Check the client's AI-use claims against SEC 2024-36 and the Marketing Rule Apply Formal Opinion 512 and Rule 1.6 to your own use of tools on the file | Open |
| Class Actions / Representative Proceedings | Apply Rule 23 (class actions) and Rule 26 (discovery) Check whether protective orders forbid public tools Apply Rule 11 to filings that rely on the review | Open |
| Commercial & Corporate Advisory | Identify the state of incorporation and open its code (Delaware or another state) Verify every section cited Review generated advice independently, as Formal Opinion 512 requires | Open |
| Criminal Law | Name the sovereign: state or federal Apply Model Rule 3.3 (candor) Keep the brief of evidence out of public tools Verify every authority | Open |
| Government Procurement & Tendering | Apply the FAR and agency supplements Confirm each clause on an official FAR source Apply Formal Opinion 512 | Open |
| Climate, ESG & Sustainability Reporting | Do not prepare an AASB S2 climate statement Check the live SEC materials Confirm any AI-related disclosure is true (SEC 2024-36) | Open |
| Superannuation | Open ERISA and the plan document; there is no SIS Act trustee-covenant analogue Apply Circular 230 if you practise before the IRS | Open |
| Strata & Community Titles | Identify the state statute; there is no national strata Act Do not import an Australian statute or form Verify generated statutory references (Formal Opinion 512) | Open |
Related tasks
Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Check authorities and the record before filing a federal submissionCommercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Check a federal court document against Rule 11 and any standing order before filingCommercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Draft federal pleadings so they can be verified under Rule 11Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Run document review under FRCP 26 proportionality and a protective orderCommercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Prepare a US brief so citations can be checked in a reporterCommercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution: Keep declaration evidence in the witness's words