# Find Your State's Lawyer-AI Guidance

> Lawyer-AI guidance is a state-by-state patchwork. How to find your state's guidance, tell if it is advisory or an enforceable rule, and read what it requires.

[Home](https://rankshieldlegal.com/) / [Blog](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/) / Legal AI AI ethics & rules
# How to Find and Read Your State's Lawyer-AI Guidance
There is no single national rule that tells a lawyer how to use AI. There is one influential ABA opinion and a growing patchwork of state guidance, most of it advisory rather than binding. This is a how-to for finding your own state's guidance, telling whether it is advisory or an enforceable rule, and reading it for what it actually requires. It is informational, not legal advice.

By [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/), Founder, RankShield ** 23 min read ** Published June 30, 2026

Start with the honest version of the answer: your state's rule is the one that governs you, and there is a real chance you have never read it. ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in 2024, is the national anchor most people cite, but it is guidance, not binding law, and it does not override what your own licensing authority has adopted [[1]](#ref-1). Many state bars have now issued their own AI ethics guidance, most of it advisory, and the specifics vary from one jurisdiction to the next. That means the practical work is not memorizing a national standard. It is finding, and then correctly reading, the guidance that applies where you are licensed.
This piece is written by a founder who builds verification tools for law firms, not by an attorney, and it is general information rather than legal advice on any specific matter. Its aim is narrow and useful: to show you where to look for your state's guidance, how to tell whether what you found is an advisory opinion or an enforceable rule, and how to read it for the concrete obligations it imposes. It also lays out the handful of themes that show up across almost all of this guidance, so you know what to expect before you open the document. Where the landscape is genuinely unsettled, this article says so and points you back to your own counsel and your jurisdiction's actual rules.

## Why there is no single rule and what that means for you
Lawyer-AI guidance is a state-by-state patchwork, not a national code. ABA Opinion 512 is an influential anchor but not binding law. The rule that governs you is the one your own jurisdiction has adopted, which is why finding and reading it matters more than any national summary.
The first thing to understand is that lawyer-AI ethics guidance is a patchwork, not a code. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is influential and widely cited, and it frames AI use as touching several existing duties at once, including competence, communication, confidentiality, candor, supervision, and fees [[1]](#ref-1). But an ABA formal opinion is guidance that states adopt, adapt, or decline. It is not a rule that binds a lawyer in any particular jurisdiction on its own. The rule that binds you is whatever your state supreme court or state bar has actually adopted, read together with any ethics opinions your state has issued.
That structure has a direct consequence. Two lawyers in two states can face the same AI task and be subject to different obligations, because their jurisdictions have said different things, or in some cases have said nothing formal yet. By one count in Justia's survey of the area, a large and growing number of state bars have issued AI-related ethics guidance, and the emphases differ from state to state [[2]](#ref-2). The number keeps moving, which is exactly why chasing a headline figure is less useful than learning to locate and read your own state's material.
So the goal of this article is not to hand you a fifty-state table that would be stale within a month and wrong in the details. It is to make you self-sufficient: able to find your state's guidance, judge what kind of document it is, and extract what it requires. The sections below walk through that process, name only well-established anchors, and send you to your own jurisdiction for everything specific to it.

## Start with the national anchor: ABA Formal Opinion 512
Before you look up your state, it helps to know the reference point almost every state opinion is written against. ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in July 2024, is the closest thing to a common baseline in this area. It does not treat AI as a single new problem with a single new fix. Instead it maps generative AI use onto duties lawyers already have, including competence under Rule 1.1, communication under Rule 1.4, confidentiality under Rule 1.6, candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3, supervision under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, and reasonable fees under Rule 1.5 [[1]](#ref-1).
Reading Opinion 512 first gives you a vocabulary for reading your own state's guidance, because most state opinions organize themselves around the same duties. When your state bar addresses whether you must verify AI output, it is usually speaking to competence and candor. When it addresses putting client information into a tool, it is usually speaking to confidentiality under Rule 1.6. When it addresses how associates and staff use these tools, it is speaking to supervision. Knowing that the map is roughly shared makes an unfamiliar state opinion far easier to parse.
Two cautions about the anchor. First, Opinion 512 is guidance, not binding law, so even a state that broadly follows it can add or subtract obligations. Second, it is a starting framework, not a substitute for your jurisdiction's own material. Treat it as the reference edition, then go find the edition that actually governs you.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 is a shared reference point, not a binding rule. It is useful because most state guidance is organized around the same duties, which makes your own state's opinion easier to read once you know the framework.

Source: ABA Formal Opinion 512; State Bar of California Download SVG

## Where to actually look for your state's guidance
Finding your state's guidance is a short, repeatable search, but only if you look in the right places and in the right order. The most common mistake is to read a national article and assume it describes your obligations. It does not. The steps below move from the source that binds you outward to the surveys that help you orient, so that you end on the controlling document rather than a secondhand summary of it.
Work these in sequence. If your state has adopted a court rule, that governs regardless of what any opinion says. If it has issued an ethics opinion, that tells you how your bar interprets your existing duties as applied to AI. The national surveys are for orientation and for confirming you did not miss something, not for the final answer.

- **Your state bar's ethics-opinions page** Search your state bar's website for its ethics or professional-responsibility opinions and look for anything mentioning artificial intelligence, generative AI, or technology competence. This is where most state AI guidance currently lives.
- **Your state supreme court for court rules** Check your state's highest court and its rules of professional conduct for any adopted rule or standing order on AI use or AI-assisted filings. An adopted rule outranks an advisory opinion.
- **The ABA as the baseline framework** Read ABA Formal Opinion 512 to understand the duties your state guidance is likely organized around, so an unfamiliar state document is easier to parse [[1]](#ref-1).
- **A national survey to orient and cross-check** Use a survey such as Justia's overview of state ethics guidance to see where your state sits and confirm you did not miss a recent opinion, then return to the primary source itself [[2]](#ref-2).
- **Your local court and standing orders** If you litigate, check the individual judges and courts you appear before for standing orders on AI, which can impose requirements that are separate from and additional to bar guidance.
End on the primary source, not the survey. A national comparison is for orientation. The controlling document is the rule or opinion your own jurisdiction has actually adopted or issued.

## Tell whether it is advisory guidance or an enforceable rule
Once you have a document in front of you, the single most important thing to determine is what kind of document it is, because that decides how much weight it carries. Most current state AI material is advisory: an ethics opinion interprets how your existing duties apply to AI, and it guides conduct without being a freestanding rule you can be disciplined for violating in itself. An adopted rule of professional conduct, or a court rule, is different. It is enforceable on its own terms, and breaching it can be a direct basis for discipline or for consequences in a case.
You can usually tell which you are holding by a few signals. Advisory opinions tend to be issued by a bar committee, are often titled as an "ethics opinion" or "formal opinion," and use interpretive language about how rules "apply" or what a lawyer "should" consider. Enforceable rules are adopted by the state's highest court or its rule-making body, appear in the rules of professional conduct or court rules, and use mandatory language. When in doubt, look at who issued it and whether it amends a rule or interprets one. If it amends or adds a rule, treat it as binding.
This distinction is not academic. It changes what you are obligated to do versus what you are advised to consider, and it changes the stakes of getting it wrong. It also changes how you read the rest of the document, which the next section turns to.
Signal Advisory guidance Enforceable rule
Who issued it A bar ethics or professional-responsibility committee The state's highest court or its rule-making body
What it is called Ethics opinion, formal opinion, advisory opinion Rule of professional conduct, court rule, standing order
Language it uses Interprets how existing duties apply; "should," "may," "consider" Adopts or amends a rule; mandatory obligations
Effect of breach Informs the standard, but is interpretive rather than a freestanding violation Can be a direct basis for discipline or case consequences
How to treat it Read as the bar's interpretation of your existing duties Read as binding on its own terms

The type of document decides its weight. An advisory opinion interprets your existing duties. An adopted rule is enforceable on its own. Confirm which you have before you rely on it.

## How to read the guidance for what it actually requires
Read the guidance for concrete obligations, not general themes: verification of output, confidentiality and consent, candor, supervision, and fees. Note where the language is mandatory. And keep the ethical confidentiality duty separate from evidentiary privilege, which the guidance does not decide.
Whether the document is advisory or binding, the practical question is the same: what does it actually ask you to do? Guidance in this area tends to cluster around a small set of obligations, so you can read purposefully rather than start to finish hoping something jumps out. Go in looking for specific requirements, and note where the document uses mandatory language versus where it merely raises a consideration.
Read for five things in particular. Does it require you to verify AI output, especially citations, before relying on or filing it? Does it require you to protect client confidentiality and, in some circumstances, to obtain the client's informed consent before putting their information into a tool? Does it speak to candor to a tribunal, meaning your responsibility for what you submit? Does it require you to supervise how others in the firm use AI? And does it address fees and billing, such as whether and how AI-related time or cost is disclosed to clients? Almost every piece of guidance in this space touches some subset of those, which is what makes them worth reading for directly.
As you read, separate two things the document may blur. There is the ethical duty of confidentiality, which is broad and applies to all information relating to a representation, and there is evidentiary privilege, which is narrower and decided by courts. Guidance usually speaks to the confidentiality duty. It does not resolve privilege, and no opinion converts a confidentiality compliance step into a guarantee that privilege is preserved. Keeping those apart as you read prevents a common and costly misreading. For a fuller treatment of that boundary, see [our overview of client confidentiality and AI](https://rankshieldlegal.com/client-confidentiality-ai/).

## The themes almost every piece of guidance shares
Because most state guidance is written against the same set of existing duties, the documents rhyme. Once you have read two or three, you will notice the same themes recurring, usually the ones Opinion 512 organizes around [[1]](#ref-1). Knowing these in advance lets you check a new document against a mental checklist and quickly see what it emphasizes and what it leaves out.
The table below summarizes the themes that appear across most guidance, with the duty each maps to and what it tends to require in practice. It is a reading aid, not a substitute for your jurisdiction's actual language, and the specifics vary. Use it to orient, then read your own state's document for how it treats each theme, because a state can weight any one of these more heavily than the others.
Theme Underlying duty What it tends to require
Competence and verification Rule 1.1 competence, Rule 3.3 candor Understand the tool, and verify AI output, especially citations, before relying on or filing it
Confidentiality and consent Rule 1.6 confidentiality Protect client information, and in some cases obtain informed consent before inputting it into a tool
Candor to the tribunal Rule 3.3 candor Take responsibility for what you submit; AI does not shift accountability for filings
Supervision Rules 5.1 and 5.3 supervision Oversee how lawyers and nonlawyer staff use AI, so use sits inside firm policy
Reasonable fees and billing Rule 1.5 fees Keep fees reasonable, and address how AI-related time or cost is handled and disclosed

These themes recur because most guidance interprets the same existing duties. Your state may emphasize one more than the others. Read the actual document for its treatment of each rather than assuming a uniform standard.

## Confidentiality in this guidance is not the same as privilege
This point deserves its own section because it is the most common way a careful reader still gets the guidance wrong. When a state opinion tells you to protect client confidentiality before using a tool, it is speaking to the ethical duty under Model Rule 1.6, which covers all information relating to a representation, whether or not anything is ever litigated [[3]](#ref-3). That duty is enforced continuously, by your bar and by the client relationship, and it applies to every matter you touch.
Evidentiary privilege is a different and narrower thing. It can keep certain lawyer-client communications out of a proceeding, and a court can find it waived by disclosure to a third party. Whether routing client material through an AI system affects privilege is an unsettled legal question that courts decide on the facts, and no ethics opinion resolves it. So when you read guidance that ties AI use to confidentiality, read it as the confidentiality duty, not as a control over privilege waiver.
The reason this matters when reading guidance is that it is easy to satisfy a confidentiality instruction and quietly assume the harder privilege question took care of itself. It did not. The two run on separate tracks, in front of different decision-makers, on different timelines. A good reader of AI guidance holds them apart deliberately. For the evidentiary side, see [our walkthrough on AI and attorney-client privilege](https://rankshieldlegal.com/attorney-client-privilege-ai/).
Guidance speaks to the ethical confidentiality duty under Rule 1.6, which is broad and continuously enforced. It does not decide evidentiary privilege, which is narrower and decided by courts. Do not read a confidentiality instruction as a privilege guarantee.

## California is the one to watch as guidance turns into rules
California shows advisory guidance moving toward enforceable rules, with proposed amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct at the comment stage as of 2026. Read proposals as proposals. The advisory-versus-enforceable line can shift over time, so track both what is in force and what is pending.
Most state guidance today is advisory, but that is not permanent, and California is the clearest example of the direction some states are moving. The State Bar of California issued practical guidance on the use of generative AI, framed around existing professional-responsibility duties, and it has been moving toward more formal, enforceable treatment through proposed amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct, which as of 2026 have been at the comment and review stage [[4]](#ref-4). That is a shift from advising how existing duties apply toward adopting rule language that would be enforceable on its own terms.
The practical lesson is not that California's specific proposals govern you, because unless you are licensed there, they do not, and the details are still in motion. The lesson is that the advisory-versus-enforceable distinction from earlier in this article is a live one, not a static classification. A state can begin with an advisory opinion and later adopt an enforceable rule, and when that happens the weight of the guidance changes even if the underlying duties do not. Roadmap items like proposed amendments should be read as proposed, not as current requirements.
If you practice in a state that is actively considering rule changes, the reading discipline is to track both what is currently in force and what is proposed, and to keep them clearly separated. For a closer look at California specifically, see [our note on California's move toward AI disciplinary rules](https://rankshieldlegal.com/california-ai-disciplinary-rules/).

## Why "how many states have guidance" is the wrong question
It is tempting to want a clean number: how many states have issued AI guidance, so you can gauge where the field stands. Resist relying on that number for anything operational. Surveys such as Justia's and comparisons in outlets like Bloomberg Law do track the count, and by one count it is substantial and growing [[2]](#ref-2). But the figure moves as new opinions issue, and more importantly, a count tells you nothing about what your state requires. Two states in the tally can impose meaningfully different obligations.
The number is also easy to misuse. A high count can create a false sense that the field is settled and uniform, when in fact the guidance is a patchwork with different emphases and different enforceability. A low count can create a false sense that your state has said nothing, when it may have adopted a court rule or issued an opinion the survey has not yet captured. Either way, the count is a headline, not a source you can act on.
So treat any national figure the way you would treat a weather map when deciding whether to bring an umbrella to a specific address. It orients you, and then you check the actual conditions where you are. The controlling material is your own jurisdiction's, and the only reliable way to know what it says is to read it.
A national count of states with AI guidance is an orientation figure, not an operational one. It moves over time and says nothing about your specific obligations. Attribute any number to its survey and hedge it, then read your own jurisdiction's material.

## Turning "we followed our state's rule" into something you can show
Reading your state's guidance correctly is the first job. A separate job is being able to show, later, that you followed it. There is a real gap between doing the right thing and being able to demonstrate it when a client, a regulator, or a court asks. A firm can verify its AI citations, isolate confidential material, and capture consent where its state calls for it, and still, months later, have only recollection to offer rather than a record.
This is the narrow place verification tooling can help, and it is worth being precise about the boundary. RankShield Legal's approach is oriented around producing verifiable records: for example, citation certification that a filing's authorities were checked, and privilege-isolation attestation that confidential or privileged material was withheld, redacted, tokenized, or handled by a local model rather than sent to a general tool. Some of these are shipping capabilities and some are roadmap items, and they should be read as labeled rather than assumed live. What they aim to do is let a firm show its handling rather than merely assert it.
The honest limit is the same one this article has held throughout. A record can show that a verification step ran or that isolation functioned as designed. It cannot decide a legal question such as whether privilege was waived, because that is a court's determination, not a control any vendor can enforce. Whatever your state requires, the value of a verifiable record is that it changes whether you can prove you met the requirement, not whether the requirement exists. Be skeptical of any tool that claims to guarantee a legal outcome.
Verifiable records help a firm prove it met a requirement, not create the requirement. Citation certification and privilege-isolation attestation attest to steps and architecture, some shipping and some roadmap, not to a legal outcome such as privilege preservation, which a court decides.

## Keep it current, and take the decision to your own counsel
Because this area is a moving patchwork, reading your state's guidance once is not enough. Guidance is issued, amended, and in some states elevated from advisory opinion to enforceable rule. A practical habit is to recheck your state bar's ethics page and your state supreme court's rules periodically, and to revisit the question whenever your firm changes the AI tools it uses or the way it uses them. Treat the search steps earlier in this article as something you rerun, not something you do once.
A short recap of the method. Find your state's material by starting with your bar's ethics opinions and your supreme court's rules, using the ABA opinion as a framework and national surveys as orientation. Determine whether what you found is advisory guidance or an enforceable rule, because that decides its weight. Read it for concrete obligations around verification, confidentiality and consent, candor, supervision, and fees. And keep the ethical confidentiality duty separate from the privilege question, which the guidance does not decide.
This article is general information from a founder who builds verification tools for law firms, not legal advice, and not an opinion on any specific matter. ABA opinions are non-binding, state guidance varies and is fact-specific, and privilege waiver is decided case by case by courts. Use this as a method for finding and reading the material that governs you, then take the actual decisions to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction and to the rules your licensing authority has actually adopted. For building the internal document itself, see [our guide to a law-firm AI policy](https://rankshieldlegal.com/law-firm-ai-policy/).

- Rerun the search periodically and whenever your firm's AI tools or practices change, because the guidance moves.
- Always end on the primary source your jurisdiction adopted, not a national summary of it [[2]](#ref-2).
- Confirm whether the document is advisory guidance or an enforceable rule before relying on it.
- Read for concrete obligations, and keep confidentiality separate from evidentiary privilege [[1]](#ref-1) [[3]](#ref-3).
- Take the actual decision to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction, because this is informational, not legal advice.
This is informational, not legal advice. Lawyer-AI guidance is a jurisdiction-specific, fact-specific patchwork, so consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction and the rules your licensing authority has adopted before relying on any AI workflow.

Test yourself
## State AI guidance self-test
Four questions on finding and correctly reading the guidance that governs you.

- 1 Is ABA Formal Opinion 512 binding law on its own? Yes, it binds every lawyer nationally No, it is guidance that states adopt, adapt, or decline Only in federal court **Answer:** No, it is guidance that states adopt, adapt, or decline Opinion 512 is an influential anchor, but the rule that governs you is whatever your state supreme court or bar has actually adopted.
- 2 Which body issues an enforceable rule rather than advisory guidance? A bar ethics committee The state's highest court or its rule-making body A national survey publisher **Answer:** The state's highest court or its rule-making body Advisory opinions come from bar committees and interpret existing duties. Enforceable rules are adopted by the highest court or rule-making body and use mandatory language.
- 3 Does satisfying a confidentiality instruction guarantee attorney-client privilege is preserved? Yes, they are the same protection No, privilege is decided by courts Only if consent was obtained **Answer:** No, privilege is decided by courts Guidance speaks to the ethical duty under Model Rule 1.6. Evidentiary privilege is narrower and a court decides whether it was waived, so no ethics opinion resolves it.
- 4 When you finish researching your obligations, which document should you rely on? The national survey summary Your own jurisdiction's adopted rule or opinion Whichever count is highest **Answer:** Your own jurisdiction's adopted rule or opinion National surveys are for orientation. End on the controlling primary source your jurisdiction actually adopted or issued.
Honest self-check. There is no sign-up, and nothing is stored.

Questions answered
## Straight answers to the common questions
The questions readers ask about this topic, answered directly. **No forms, no sales pitch.**

JAMIE KLONCZ · SEO AGENCY NAPLES ************** ONLINE
Pick a question on the left, or search above. You will get the direct answer, the way an answer engine would give it.

← PREV NEXT → [REQUEST ACCESS →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/contact/)

- **Is there a single national rule for lawyers using AI?** No. There is no single binding national rule. ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in 2024, is the most widely cited reference, and it frames AI use as implicating existing duties including competence, communication, confidentiality, candor, supervision, and fees [1]. But an ABA formal opinion is guidance that states adopt, adapt, or decline, not a rule that binds any lawyer on its own. The rule that governs you is whatever your state supreme court or state bar has adopted, read together with any ethics opinions your state has issued. Many states have now issued their own AI guidance, most of it advisory, and the specifics differ from one jurisdiction to the next. So the useful step is not memorizing a national standard but finding and reading the material that applies where you are licensed, using the ABA opinion as a framework rather than as the controlling rule.
- **How do I find my own state's AI guidance?** Work from the source that binds you outward. Start with your state bar's ethics or professional-responsibility opinions page and search for artificial intelligence, generative AI, or technology competence, because that is where most state AI guidance currently lives. Then check your state's highest court and its rules of professional conduct for any adopted rule or standing order, since an adopted rule outranks an advisory opinion. Use ABA Formal Opinion 512 to understand the duties your state guidance is likely organized around [1], and use a national survey such as Justia's to orient yourself and confirm you did not miss a recent opinion [2]. If you litigate, also check the individual judges and courts you appear before for standing orders on AI. End on the primary source your jurisdiction issued, not a secondhand summary of it.
- **How do I tell whether the guidance is advisory or an enforceable rule?** Look at who issued it and what it does. Advisory guidance is usually issued by a bar ethics or professional-responsibility committee, is titled as an ethics or formal opinion, and uses interpretive language about how existing duties apply, with words like should, may, and consider. An enforceable rule is adopted by the state's highest court or its rule-making body, appears in the rules of professional conduct or court rules, and uses mandatory language. The clearest signal is whether the document amends or adds a rule versus interprets one. If it amends or adds a rule, treat it as binding on its own terms, where breach can be a direct basis for discipline. If it interprets existing duties, treat it as the bar's view of how those duties apply. Confirm which you have before you rely on it, because the type of document decides its weight.
- **What should I read the guidance for?** Read purposefully for a small set of concrete obligations rather than start to finish. Check whether it requires you to verify AI output, especially citations, before relying on or filing it. Check whether it requires you to protect client confidentiality and, in some circumstances, obtain the client's informed consent before inputting their information into a tool. Check whether it addresses candor to a tribunal, meaning your responsibility for what you submit. Check whether it requires you to supervise how others in the firm use AI. And check whether it addresses fees and billing. Almost all guidance in this space touches some subset of those themes, which map to existing duties [1]. As you read, note where the language is mandatory versus advisory, and keep the ethical confidentiality duty separate from evidentiary privilege, which the guidance does not resolve.
- **How many states have issued AI guidance?** By one count in surveys such as Justia's, a substantial and growing number of state bars have issued AI-related ethics guidance, but the figure keeps moving as new opinions issue [2]. Treat any specific number with caution. A count tells you nothing about what your particular state requires, because two states in the same tally can impose meaningfully different obligations, and the guidance is a patchwork with different emphases and different enforceability. A high count can create a false impression that the field is settled and uniform, and a low count can wrongly suggest your state has said nothing when it may have adopted a rule the survey has not captured. Use a national figure only to orient yourself, then read your own jurisdiction's material, which is the only source that tells you what actually applies to you.
- **Is California different from other states?** California is a notable example of guidance moving toward enforceable rules. The State Bar of California issued practical guidance on generative AI framed around existing professional-responsibility duties, and it has been moving toward more formal treatment through proposed amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct, which as of 2026 have been at the comment and review stage [4]. That is a shift from advising how existing duties apply toward adopting rule language that would be enforceable on its own. The proposals govern only lawyers licensed in California, and because they are proposals the details remain in motion, so read them as proposed rather than as current requirements. The broader lesson for any state is that the advisory-versus-enforceable line can change over time, so track both what is currently in force in your jurisdiction and what is pending.
- **Does following the guidance mean my client's privilege is protected?** No, and this is an important distinction. State guidance generally speaks to the ethical duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6, which covers all information relating to a representation whether or not anything is litigated, and which your bar enforces continuously [3]. Evidentiary privilege is a separate and narrower protection that can keep certain lawyer-client communications out of a proceeding and that a court can find waived by disclosure to a third party. Whether AI use affects privilege is an unsettled legal question courts decide on the facts, and no ethics opinion resolves it. So satisfying a confidentiality instruction in guidance does not guarantee that privilege is preserved. Keep the two apart when you read, and be skeptical of any tool or claim that promises a privilege outcome, because that is a determination only a court makes.

## References

- ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. July 29, 2024. [https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/)
- Justia. State-by-State Survey of Ethics Guidance on Generative AI in Legal Practice. 2024. [https://www.justia.com/lawyers/legal-ethics/](https://www.justia.com/lawyers/legal-ethics/)
- American Bar Association. Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information. 2024. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/)
- The State Bar of California. Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law. 2023. [https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf)

Written by
## [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)
Founder, RankShield
Jamie Kloncz is the founder of RankShield, the verifiable AI and quantum security platform behind RankShield Legal. An engineer by training, he built RankShield after his own devices and business were attacked, including an AI voice-cloning scam that targeted his family, on one conviction: unverifiable security is the real danger, so every consequential action should leave a receipt anyone can independently check.
[More about Jamie →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)

Try it · Free
## Check a citation against live case-law
Paste a citation from an AI-drafted brief and see whether the case actually exists, resolved against live case-law. Free, no sign-up. Then request early access to certify a full filing.
[Try the citation checker](https://rankshieldlegal.com/ai-legal-citation-checker/)

Keep reading
## Related guides
[Legal AI When Your AI Stops Drafting and Starts Acting: The Agentic AI Governance Gap in Law Firms Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/agentic-ai-governance-gap-law-firms/)[Legal AI California Is Turning AI Ethics Guidance Into Disciplinary Rules Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/california-ai-disciplinary-rules/)[Legal AI What Court AI-Certification Orders Require You to Attest Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/court-ai-certification-orders/)