Florida Bar Seeks Comments on New AI Ethics Opinion

The Florida Bar is asking members to weigh in before it writes new ethics guidance on artificial intelligence tools. A public notice dated October 15, 2026 says the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics will consider a proposed advisory opinion on December 10 from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Omni Amelia Island. There is no draft yet. Comments are due by December 1 to eto@floridabar.org or to Ethics Counsel Jonathan Grabb in Tallahassee.

Florida already has Ethics Opinion 24-1, issued January 19, 2024. The new project comes from the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence Tools and Resources, which asked for updates and for guidance on tools that barely existed when 24-1 landed.

What the Notice Says May Be Covered

The notice lists four topics the proposed opinion may address: lawyers’ use of agentic AI tools; AI tools used to record, transcribe and summarize communications; guidance to clients about their own AI use; and updates to Opinion 24-1. Agentic tools take multi-step actions with less human prompting. Recording tools are already in meetings and depositions. Client-side AI use is the quiet risk many litigators see first in discovery, not in their own drafting stack.

Members must state that comments refer to proposed ethics guidance for artificial intelligence, identify issues for the committee, and may suggest fee arrangements or a proposed conclusion.

Opinion 24-1 Remains the Baseline

Opinion 24-1 still sets Florida’s published baseline. Lawyers may use generative AI, but they must protect client confidentiality, verify the work, avoid improper billing and follow advertising rules when chatbots talk to the public. The opinion tells lawyers to understand a tool’s data retention, data sharing and self-learning behavior before putting client information into it. Informed consent is recommended when confidential information would go to a third-party system. Lawyers remain responsible for the product, including research accuracy, and may not double-bill for efficiency gains. Chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties need a disclaimer that the speaker is an AI program, not a lawyer or firm employee.

Nothing in the current comment process withdraws 24-1. The December question is how far any update goes into agents, meeting recordings and client counseling.

Early Comments and Other Jurisdictions

In a November 4 Florida Bar News report, Jim Ash wrote that eight attorneys had submitted comments as of November 3. Most wanted more guidance. One wanted a hard stop.

Gainesville probate lawyer Nathan Nevins, the only commenter Ash describes as opposed to most lawyer AI use, recommended that AI use for anything other than legal research be “wholly banned,” with research results double-checked. He warned that counsel are already exchanging AI-generated proposals.

“We literally have scenarios now where we have AI negotiating contracts with other AI,” Nevins wrote. “This is what we want the legal profession to turn into?”

Civil trial lawyer Ryan Enage pointed to court filings. He noted that the Florida Supreme Court this summer amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) so that, by filing, the signer represents that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The May 28, 2026 order in SC2026-0673 framed the change as a statewide replacement for varied circuit orders on AI disclosure and certification. It took effect June 15, 2026. Enage recommends that papers prepared with AI assistance carry a “Prepared with Assistance of Artificial Intelligence” legend.

Hialeah commercial litigator Arianna Mendez focused on clients. She wrote that clients have brought her AI-generated legal advice and have shared sensitive information with AI systems, raising discovery and preservation questions about prompts, uploads and responses. Clients may treat those chats as private when they are not. She asked for guidance on counseling clients about those risks.

Jason K. Castro of Golden Gate Legal Center asked regulators not to treat “revision fatigue” and version-control mistakes the same as intentional misconduct or reckless disregard. Circumstances, precautions and the lawyer’s response after discovery should shape any ethics assessment, he wrote.

Ethics Counsel Jonathan Grabb told the News that the committee will review comments and the proposed opinion on December 10. It can proceed, modify, withdraw, or form a subcommittee. Once a draft exists, it will be noticed in the News before Board of Governors consideration.

Florida’s court rule already took a verification path rather than an AI-disclosure checkbox. That is closer to New York’s court system, which we covered when it told lawyers to check AI output and skip mandatory disclosure, than to regimes that add a separate AI declaration on every filing. The Civil Justice Council for England and Wales likewise recommended against new AI declarations for lawyers’ advocacy papers. Florida’s ethics project adds the client-counseling and agentic-tool layer those court rules usually skip.

Common Questions

Is there a draft opinion to comment on?

No. The October 15 notice says there are no drafts for the committee’s consideration at this time. Comments are on the issues listed, not on specific proposed text.

Does Opinion 24-1 still apply while this process runs?

Yes. The notice frames the project as possible updates to 24-1, not a repeal. Confidentiality, verification, billing and chatbot advertising rules from 24-1 remain the published Florida ethics baseline.

When do comments close, and what happens next?

Comments must be postmarked or emailed by December 1. The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics meets December 10. Any draft that moves forward is noticed before the Board of Governors acts.

Does Rule 2.515 already require an AI disclosure label on filings?

No. The 2026 amendment requires the signer to represent that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. It does not require the words “Prepared with Assistance of Artificial Intelligence.” That label is a member recommendation in the comment file, not current rule text.

What to Watch

Real. A state bar is opening a formal ethics rewrite on agentic tools, meeting AI and client AI use with a hard comment deadline and a noticed December meeting. The gap is the missing draft. Until text appears, firms should treat Opinion 24-1 and Rule 2.515 as the operative Florida rules, send comments if they have a concrete ask, and expect the next fight to be over disclosure labels versus verification duties once a draft is published.