---
title: "United States"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US"
kind: "country"
country: "US"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-11"
---

# United States

> Open the conduct rules of the state where you are admitted, then the court's local rules and any standing order. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the national map, not a substitute. Verify every citation before filing.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-11

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

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.

## Key facts

- Kind: Country
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 38
- AI instruments recorded: 14

## Summary

Open the conduct rules of the state where you are admitted, then the court's local rules and any standing order. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the national map, not a substitute. Verify every citation before filing. Keep client information out of public or self-learning tools unless Rule 1.6 is met.

## AI rules and guidance (14)

| Instrument | Issuer | Kind | Effective | Source type | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [22 NYCRR Part 161 (AI in court submissions), AO/75/26](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf) | New York State Unified Court System | court_rule | 2026-06-01 | Secondary source | 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. |
| [Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2026-2-ethical-use-of-ai-for-recording-transcribing-and-summarizing-non-client-conversations/) | New York City Bar Association | ethics_opinion | Not stated | Secondary source | No confidential information into open AI systems without consent; verify outputs; do not bill hourly for time saved. |
| [Formal Opinion 2026-2: AI for recording, transcribing and summarising non-client conversations](https://clearbrief.com/legal-ai-resources/new-york-city) | New York City Bar Association | ethics_opinion | Not stated | Secondary source | No surreptitious recording (Rule 8.4); disclose intent to record; manage third-party AI note-takers and access to summaries. |
| [Ethics Opinion 24-1 (generative AI)](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) | The Florida Bar | ethics_opinion | 2024-01-19 | Primary source | 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. |
| [Opinion 705 (generative AI)](https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/) | State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee | ethics_opinion | 2025-02 | Primary source | Competence (Rule 1.01), confidentiality, supervision and independent verification of AI output. |
| [Preliminary Guidelines on the use of AI by New Jersey lawyers](https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence-use-courts) | Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on AI | court_guideline | 2024-01-25 | Primary source | No new obligations; highlights RPCs: lawyers responsible for submissions, must not submit false content, must secure AI systems. |
| [Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI)](https://aistandardofcare.com/legal-ethics/states/pennsylvania/) | Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association | ethics_opinion | Not stated | Secondary source | Lawyers must understand AI, verify all citations and must not make false or misleading submissions. |
| [Policy on Artificial Intelligence](https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/) | Illinois Supreme Court | court_policy | 2025-01-01 | Primary source | Existing professional and judicial conduct rules apply fully; attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants are accountable for their work product; no disclosure mandate. |
| [Federal judge standing orders on generative AI (trackers)](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker) | Various US federal judges | tracker | Not stated | Secondary source | Law360 and Ropes & Gray track individual standing orders requiring certification or disclosure of AI use (e.g. a W.D.N.C. order). |
| [Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters](https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388) | District of Columbia Bar | ethics_opinion | Not stated | Primary source | Addresses candor to tribunals, compliance with court AI orders (Rule 3.4(c)) and reasonable fees (Rule 1.5) when using GenAI. |
| [Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence](https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf) | New York State Bar Association | bar_report | 2024-04 | Primary source | Recommendations for AI in legal practice, including education of judges, lawyers and regulators. |
| [ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/) | American Bar Association | press_release | 2024-07-29 | Secondary source | Release accompanying Opinion 512 (already in database): competence, confidentiality (MR 1.6), fees (MR 1.5). |
| [California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574) | California Legislature | legislation | 2027-01-01 | Primary source | 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.… |
| [California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) – Personal verification of citations in court filings (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574) | California Legislature | legislation | 2027-01-01 | Primary source | 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… |

- 22 NYCRR Part 161 (AI in court submissions), AO/75/26: Secondary source (Abramson Legal); confirm on nycourts.gov.
- Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law: The linked page is Formal Opinion 2026-2, not 2024-5. Confirm 2024-5 on nycbar.org before reliance.
- 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.
- 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.
- ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512: Opinion 512 itself is already in the database; add only as a supporting source.

## What to open first

- Name the court or agency, then your state of admission.
- Open the forum's local rules and any standing order on generative AI.
- Open ABA Formal Opinion 512 and your admitting state's ethics opinion or practical guidance.
- A New York City Bar opinion does not govern a Texas filing. Opinion 512 does not displace Rule 11 or a judge's certificate requirement.

## Court and tribunal AI rules

- FRCP 11(b): signing certifies legal contentions are warranted by existing law after reasonable inquiry.
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc. treated fabricated ChatGPT citations as a Rule 11 problem: tools are not improper, but the lawyer is the gatekeeper.
- Some judges add standing orders. E.D. Tex. (9 April 2025) requires a Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage; without one, a filing is presumed AI-free.
- EOIR PM 25-40 (8 August 2025): no ban and no mandatory disclosure, but judges may adopt standing orders. Hallucinated citations can support discipline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102.
- Proposed FRE 707 was not sent forward on 7 May 2026. The draft was revised; deepfakes remain under study.
- There is no single US court AI practice note.

## Professional-conduct rules

- State rules vary. Use Opinion 512 as the map, then read the local opinion.
- California 2026 Practical Guidance (replacing November 2023): keep professional judgment; no agentic filing, advice or communication without review; no confidential input to risky tools without consent.
- Florida 24-1: reasonable confidentiality steps (including whether the tool is self-learning), oversight policies, reasonable fees and verified research.
- NYC Bar 2024-5, Texas 705 (February 2025), D.C. 388, Kentucky KBA E-457 (March 2024) and New Jersey's January 2024 preliminary guidelines cover the same ground locally.
- Pennsylvania Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, cited in Opinion 512, flags conflicts if a model reuses one client's information for another.
- California has proposed AI-related amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. Check whether they are adopted before treating them as in force.

## Privacy and confidentiality

- Model Rule 1.6 (and the state equivalent): reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the representation.
- Opinion 512, Florida 24-1, California, Texas 705 and D.C. 388: public or self-learning tools are a confidentiality problem unless terms, retention and security are adequate or the client consents.
- No general federal privacy law. HIPAA covers covered entities and business associates handling PHI.
- CCPA, as amended by the CPRA: rights to know, delete, correct, opt out of sale or sharing, and limit use of sensitive personal information.
- Colorado SB26-189 (signed 14 May 2026) repeals and re-enacts SB24-205; ADMT duties from 1 January 2027. HB26-1263 (signed 1 July 2026) adds chatbot duties from the same date.
- Open the statute that covers the data, not a generic 'US privacy' label.

## Review checklist

- Open the court's or agency's current local rules, standing order or policy memorandum on generative AI.
- Open Opinion 512 and the admitting state's opinion or guidance.
- Verify every citation, quotation and record reference in an official reporter, court site or paid database, not another generative tool.
- Read the output against the instructions and the source before filing. Rule 11 and Rule 3.3 are not delegated.
- Keep client information, tax-return information and PHI out of public or self-learning tools unless the rules allow it.
- Bill hourly work for time actually spent (Rule 1.5; Opinion 512, Florida 24-1, California).
- Supervisors need policies and training for lawyers, staff and vendors (Rules 5.1 and 5.3), with tighter controls for agentic tools.

## Regulator and bar guidance beyond the ethics opinions

- USPTO (11 April 2024): candor, signature and confidentiality duties (37 C.F.R. parts 1, 2 and 11) apply to AI-assisted filings. Sign and review the paper yourself.
- USPTO inventorship (28 November 2025): rescinds the February 2024 notice. Only natural persons can be inventors; same conception standard with or without AI.
- IRS OPR Issue 2026-19: maps generative AI to Circular 230 §§ 10.22, 10.27, 10.35, 10.36 and 10.37 and IRC §§ 6713 and 7216.
- SEC press release 2024-36 (2024): settled 'AI washing' charges against two advisers.
- EEOC April 2024 explainer: Title VII, the ADA and related statutes apply to AI in hiring, monitoring, pay, promotion and firing. Check the current EEOC resource list.
- Copyright Office AI report Part 2 (29 January 2025): copyrightability of generative-AI outputs.

## Tasks that change here (38)

| Task | Level | How AI is used |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Check authorities and the record before filing a federal submission](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-authorities-and-the-record-before-filing-a-federal-submission.md) | Yellow | Extract every case name, statute, quotation and record cite from the draft into a verification list. |
| [Check a federal court document against Rule 11 and any standing order before filing](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-a-federal-court-document-against-rule-11-and-any-standing-order-be.md) | Red | Flag whether the draft discloses generative-AI use and list the judge, court and local-rule URLs for the lawyer to open. |
| [Draft federal pleadings so they can be verified under Rule 11](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/draft-federal-pleadings-so-they-can-be-verified-under-rule-11.md) | Yellow | Produce a first-draft complaint or answer from the instructions and a caption template the lawyer supplies. |
| [Run document review under FRCP 26 proportionality and a protective order](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/run-document-review-under-frcp-26-proportionality-and-a-protective-order.md) | Yellow | Suggest coding, clustering or issue tags on a closed-environment review set. |
| [Prepare a US brief so citations can be checked in a reporter](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/prepare-a-us-brief-so-citations-can-be-checked-in-a-reporter.md) | Yellow | Extract citations and quotations into a table with pinpoint claims. |
| [Keep declaration evidence in the witness's words](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/keep-declaration-evidence-in-the-witness-s-words.md) | Red | The tool writes no part of the declaration and suggests no wording for it: no draft, no structure, no outline, no suggested paragraphs.… |
| [Map a US bankruptcy filing to the Bankruptcy Code](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/map-a-us-bankruptcy-filing-to-the-bankruptcy-code.md) | Yellow | Extract dates, debts and chapter-selection issues from the papers into a checklist labelled with Bankruptcy Code section numbers the lawyer must confirm. |
| [Advise on AI used in hiring or workplace decisions under federal discrimination statutes](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-ai-used-in-hiring-or-workplace-decisions-under-federal-discrim.md) | Yellow | From the vendor description the lawyer supplies, list which employment steps the tool touches (screening, monitoring, promotion, firing) for Title VII/ADA… |
| [Draft a state-court family affidavit without putting the file into a public tool](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/draft-a-state-court-family-affidavit-without-putting-the-file-into-a-pub.md) | Red | The tool writes no part of the declaration and suggests no wording for it: no draft, no outline, no placeholders, no suggested paragraphs.… |
| [Check permission before putting family-court or medical records into a tool](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-permission-before-putting-family-court-or-medical-records-into-a-t.md) | Red | List document types in the folder (subpoenaed records, medical, financial, children’s material) for a yes/no permission table. |
| [Respond to a USPTO office action with a human signature and a candor check](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/respond-to-a-uspto-office-action-with-a-human-signature-and-a-candor-che.md) | Yellow | Suggest claim amendments and argument headings from the office action and the specification the lawyer uploads into a closed environment. |
| [Advise on AI-assisted inventorship and copyrightability](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-ai-assisted-inventorship-and-copyrightability.md) | Yellow | Collect the human contributions and the AI steps the client describes into a chronology for the lawyer. |
| [Analyse copyright subsistence using the Copyright Office AI report hub](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/analyse-copyright-subsistence-using-the-copyright-office-ai-report-hub.md) | Yellow | Extract claimed human authorship facts from the client papers into a list the lawyer maps to Part 2. |
| [Map a US privacy file to the statutes that actually apply](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/map-a-us-privacy-file-to-the-statutes-that-actually-apply.md) | Yellow | From the client’s data map, list possible triggers: HIPAA PHI, GLBA financial information, CCPA consumer personal information, Colorado ADMT, Rule 1.6 client… |
| [Assess a generative-AI vendor against Rule 1.6 before any client input](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/assess-a-generative-ai-vendor-against-rule-1-6-before-any-client-input.md) | Yellow | Extract retention, training-use, subprocessors and breach-notice terms from the vendor documents into a table. |
| [Advise on automated decision-making under Colorado SB26-189](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-automated-decision-making-under-colorado-sb26-189.md) | Yellow | Identify whether the system materially influences a consequential decision and whether the client is a developer or a deployer. |
| [Draft US tax advice so it can survive Circular 230 § 10.37](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/draft-us-tax-advice-so-it-can-survive-circular-230-10-37.md) | Yellow | Produce a first-draft advice letter from the facts and issues the lawyer supplies, with every citation marked unverified. |
| [Prepare an Immigration Court or BIA filing under EOIR PM 25-40](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/prepare-an-immigration-court-or-bia-filing-under-eoir-pm-25-40.md) | Red | Extract facts and proposed authorities from the record the lawyer designates into a draft outline. |
| [Check an immigration judicial-review brief the same way you would any federal brief](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-an-immigration-judicial-review-brief-the-same-way-you-would-any-fe.md) | Red | Build a citation and administrative-record pin-cite list from the draft. |
| [Reconcile a US client trust account against the bank](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/reconcile-a-us-client-trust-account-against-the-bank.md) | Red | Suggest mismatches between a bank statement and a ledger export for the lawyer to investigate. |
| [Decide whether US client material can go into a tool](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/decide-whether-us-client-material-can-go-into-a-tool.md) | Yellow | Classify each document as public, confidential under Rule 1.6, PHI, tax-return information, or California consumer personal information. |
| [Bill time actually worked, including where a tool shortened the task](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/bill-time-actually-worked-including-where-a-tool-shortened-the-task.md) | Yellow | From the time file and the tool logs the lawyer supplies, list tasks where elapsed time and billed time may diverge. |
| [Deploy a US client-facing chatbot without it practising law unsupervised](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/deploy-a-us-client-facing-chatbot-without-it-practising-law-unsupervised.md) | Red | Draft proposed user-facing disclosures (not a lawyer, not legal advice, how data is used) from the firm’s policy. |
| [Assess claimed deepfake or AI-generated evidence under existing FRE rules](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/assess-claimed-deepfake-or-ai-generated-evidence-under-existing-fre-rule.md) | Red | List authenticity facts (source device, hash, provenance, who offers the item) for a Rule 901 analysis. |
| [Advise on a client’s automated decision system under EEOC and Colorado ADMT sources](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-a-client-s-automated-decision-system-under-eeoc-and-colorado-a.md) | Red | Map the system to hiring, credit, housing or other consequential decisions and to developer vs deployer. |
| [Review a US residential purchase contract under state recording and disclosure rules](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/review-a-us-residential-purchase-contract-under-state-recording-and-disc.md) | Yellow | Extract dates, parties, property description and special conditions into a table for the lawyer to match to the state contract form. |
| [Check a construction payment claim against the state prompt-pay or lien statute](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-a-construction-payment-claim-against-the-state-prompt-pay-or-lien.md) | Red | Extract claimed amounts, dates of work and notice dates into a timeline. |
| [Settle a US personal-injury file with a Rule 1.5 fee check](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/settle-a-us-personal-injury-file-with-a-rule-1-5-fee-check.md) | Yellow | From medical summaries and wage records the lawyer designates, build a damages table with every figure sourced. |
| [Diligence an AI vendor for a US adviser or broker-dealer client](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/diligence-an-ai-vendor-for-a-us-adviser-or-broker-dealer-client.md) | Yellow | Extract the vendor’s AI-capability claims and data-use terms for comparison with the client’s Form ADV or marketing copy. |
| [Handle a US health-privacy incident as HIPAA plus Rule 1.6](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/handle-a-us-health-privacy-incident-as-hipaa-plus-rule-1-6.md) | Red | Sort the incident facts into covered-entity / business-associate / other, and list data elements that may be PHI. |
| [Run class-action TAR inside a closed environment under FRCP 26](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/run-class-action-tar-inside-a-closed-environment-under-frcp-26.md) | Yellow | Propose review batches and issue codes from a protocol the lawyer has already approved. |
| [Advise on corporate duties under the law of the state of incorporation](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-corporate-duties-under-the-law-of-the-state-of-incorporation.md) | Red | Extract the proposed transaction steps and flag which state’s corporate code the lawyer must open. |
| [Draft a US criminal filing with candor checks and no public-tool evidence dump](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/draft-a-us-criminal-filing-with-candor-checks-and-no-public-tool-evidenc.md) | Red | Turn the lawyer’s issue list into a draft structure with citation placeholders. |
| [Check a US federal solicitation against the FAR text in force](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/check-a-us-federal-solicitation-against-the-far-text-in-force.md) | Yellow | Extract clause numbers from the solicitation into a list for the lawyer to open in the FAR. |
| [Decide which US climate or ESG disclosure instrument actually applies](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/decide-which-us-climate-or-esg-disclosure-instrument-actually-applies.md) | Red | From the entity description, list possible federal securities, state and FTC green-claims sources for the lawyer to open. |
| [Advise on a US retirement-plan covenant under ERISA](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/advise-on-a-us-retirement-plan-covenant-under-erisa.md) | Yellow | Extract plan-document duties the lawyer highlights into a table labelled for ERISA/IRC confirmation. |
| [Identify the state condominium or HOA statute before advising](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/identify-the-state-condominium-or-hoa-statute-before-advising.md) | Red | Extract the community type (condominium, cooperative, HOA) and recorded-document names from the papers. |
| [Decide whether US discovery or suppressed material can go into a tool](https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/united-states/decide-whether-us-discovery-or-suppressed-material-can-go-into-a-tool.md) | Red | List each document class (produced discovery, sealed, PHI, work product) for a permission table. |

## Sources

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 (technology competence)](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Opinion and Order on Sanctions (S.D.N.Y. 22 June 2023)](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2022cv01461/575368/54/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, report of the 7 May 2026 meeting (proposed Rule 707)](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [State Bar of California, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [California Attorney General: California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)](https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa) (checked 2026-09-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*