# Every State Bar Opinion on Generative AI, Linked and Summarized > A running guide to state bar AI ethics opinions: who has ruled, what each says on confidentiality, billing, chatbots and recording. By The Circle Desk | AI in Practice | Published 2026-10-24 Source: https://legaltechcircle.com/insights/state-bar-ai-ethics-opinions/ State bars that have issued generative AI guidance include California (November 16, 2023), Florida ([Opinion 24-1](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/), January 19, 2024), the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, New York City and Alabama, and their opinions are where most of the practical detail on lawyers' AI use lives. This tracker links the opinions we have read in full, with dates, and points to the State Bar of California's list, the most complete public index we have found. Advisory opinions describe how a bar committee reads its own rules and are generally not binding, as Florida's says in its text; each summary describes the opinion, not any reader's own obligations. ## Which State Bars Issued the First AI Ethics Opinions? California moved first. Its Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI is dated November 16, 2023, and the State Bar's [AI resources page](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-technology-resources/artificial-intelligence) links it alongside a running list of other jurisdictions' opinions, including Alaska 2025-1, Kentucky E-457, Mississippi 267, Missouri Informal 2024-11, New Mexico 2024-004, the joint Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Opinion 2024-200 and Washington 202505. Florida followed with [Opinion 24-1](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) on January 19, 2024. It treats confidentiality as the central risk and says obtaining a client's informed consent before sharing confidential information with a third-party AI tool is recommended. It also addresses fees, warning against double-billing and against using AI efficiency to inflate billed time, and says a client-facing chatbot has to disclose that it is an AI program. The opinion states plainly that advisory ethics opinions are not binding. The District of Columbia's [Opinion 388](https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388), published in April 2024, works through competence, confidentiality, supervision and candor, and adds two practical points: hourly billing limited to time actually spent, and whether AI prompts and outputs belong in the client file. The New York City Bar's [Formal Opinion 2024-5](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law/), issued August 7, 2024, borrows California's format and describes itself as offering "guardrails and not hard-and-fast restrictions." North Carolina adopted [2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1](https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/) on November 1, 2024. It says lawyers should avoid putting client-specific information into publicly available AI tools, and that an in-house tool does not remove confidentiality concerns. Its billing example is a lawyer who charges $300 an hour and cannot bill three hours for work that took one. ## What Did the 2025 Opinions Say About Fees and AI Models? Oregon's [Formal Opinion 2025-205](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf), approved by its Board of Governors in February 2025, draws a line between what it calls open and closed AI models. It describes informed consent as required before client information goes into an open model, and says firms cannot prorate the cost of a subscription across clients as a billed expense. Texas's Professional Ethics Committee issued [Opinion 705](https://legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/) in February 2025 at the request of the State Bar's AI Taskforce. It says lawyers cannot charge for hours saved by AI, and notes court-specific requirements, including a local rule in the Northern District of Texas. Virginia took the most distinctive position on money. [Legal Ethics Opinion 1901](https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf), approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on November 24, 2025, accepts that hourly billing has to track actual time but says it is "not per se unreasonable" to charge the same non-hourly fee for work done with AI as without. That reads differently from the ABA's Formal Opinion 512, which suggested an unchanged flat fee may be unreasonable when a tool makes the work much faster. ## What Do Bars Say About AI Recording, Chatbots and Agents? The newest opinions have moved past drafting and research. The New York City Bar's [Formal Opinion 2025-6](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6-ethical-issues-affecting-use-of-ai-to-record-transcribe-and-summarize-conversations-with-clients/), issued December 22, 2025, addresses AI tools that record, transcribe and summarize client conversations. It describes getting client consent before recording, reviewing AI summaries for accuracy, and advising clients who use their own AI tools. Its follow-up, [Formal Opinion 2026-2](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2026-2-ethical-use-of-ai-for-recording-transcribing-and-summarizing-non-client-conversations/), issued August 5, 2026, covers calls with people who are not clients, such as opposing counsel, witnesses and prospective clients. It describes obtaining consent from all parties and suggests that, absent a good reason, the default should be not to record. Oregon's [Formal Opinion 2026-208](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf), approved in February 2026, answers "Yes, qualified" to whether lawyers may use AI chatbots and agents for intake and marketing. It flags the risk of accidentally forming a lawyer-client relationship, describes disclaimers, says prospective clients identified by a chatbot belong in the conflicts system, and says autonomous actions should be subject to lawyer approval. Alabama's opinion, [Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules](https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/), is filed as FO-2026-01. The document itself prints no date, but it cites an Alabama Supreme Court decision from April 24, 2026, so it was issued after that. It covers agentic AI directly, treats AI subscription costs as overhead, discusses documenting AI use, and warns that a chatbot that gives legal advice may raise unauthorized practice concerns. ## Which State Bar Opinion Is Next? Florida is next. The Florida Bar has [announced](https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/proposed-advisory-opinion-on-artificial-intelligence-tools/) that its Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics will consider a new advisory opinion at its December 10 meeting, covering agentic AI, recording and transcription tools, guidance to clients on their own AI use, and updates to Opinion 24-1. No draft has been released, and written comments are due by December 1. Beyond Florida, the pattern is clear: the first wave of opinions dealt with chatbots that draft, and the second wave deals with tools that listen and act. Expect more bars to follow New York City on recording and Oregon on agents, and watch whether any state revisits its fee guidance after Virginia's value-pricing opinion. We will update this tracker as new opinions are issued. ## FAQ **Which state bar issued AI guidance first?** California, with Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI dated November 16, 2023, listed on the State Bar's [AI resources page](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-technology-resources/artificial-intelligence). **Can lawyers charge for hours saved by AI in Texas?** No, according to Texas [Opinion 705](https://legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/), issued February 2025. **Which opinion took a different view on fees?** Virginia's [Legal Ethics Opinion 1901](https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf), approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on November 24, 2025, on value pricing. **What is Florida considering next?** A new advisory opinion at its December 10, 2026 meeting, with written comments due December 1, per the [Florida Bar](https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/proposed-advisory-opinion-on-artificial-intelligence-tools/). --- Legal Tech Circle (https://legaltechcircle.com/). News and analysis, not legal advice.