What AI rules apply to your firm?
Pick a jurisdiction and see the AI-related professional duties that apply (client consent, billing, verification, and court filing), each with a link to the authority that says so. A reference summary of published guidance, not legal advice.
Every jurisdiction covered, in full
National baseline: ABA Formal Opinion 512
ABA Formal Opinion 512, “Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools” (July 29, 2024)
- Client consent / disclosure: Sometimes required. You must protect client information (Model Rule 1.6). Before putting confidential information into a generative-AI tool, evaluate how that tool stores, uses and retains inputs. For tools that train on or could expose what you enter, the opinion indicates informed client consent may be required first.
- Billing disclosure: Applies. Fees must be reasonable and reflect the time you actually spent (Model Rule 1.5). You may not bill for time the AI saved as though you spent it, and AI costs charged to a client should be disclosed to the client.
- Verification of AI output: Required. Competence (Rule 1.1) and candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3) require you to review AI output, which can be inaccurate or fabricated. Responsibility for the work stays with the lawyer regardless of what produced it.
- Court-filing disclosure: No blanket duty. Opinion 512 does not itself require disclosing AI use to a court. But many individual courts have standing orders that do, so always check the rules of the specific court and judge you are filing before.
Florida
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024)
- Client consent / disclosure: Required in some cases. Obtain the client’s informed consent before using a third-party generative-AI tool if the use would involve disclosing the client’s confidential information, and take reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure.
- Billing disclosure: Applies. Efficiency gained from AI must not result in duplicate charges or inflated billable hours. Fees must be reasonable and AI-related costs transparent (Rule 4-1.5).
- Verification of AI output: Required. A lawyer must oversee generative AI and review its work product just as the lawyer reviews the work of a nonlawyer assistant. The lawyer is responsible for the work whether AI drafted it in whole or in part.
- Court-filing disclosure: Citation certification. No AI disclosure in state court, but signers certify their citations. Since June 15, 2026, Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) means anyone who signs a Florida state-court filing represents that the legal authorities cited exist and are accurately cited, and courts may sanction filings that fall short. The Florida Supreme Court adopted it to replace the circuit-by-circuit AI disclosure orders. Federal judges in Florida can still have their own standing orders, so check the judge before filing.
Court rules and standing orders on AI
Bar opinions set the baseline. Courts can go further, and in Florida the state supreme court has now set one rule for every state court.
Florida state courts: one statewide rule
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), amended May 28, 2026, effective June 15, 2026: by signing a filing, the signer represents that the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. Courts may sanction a filing that is inconsistent with that representation. It applies to lawyers and self-represented litigants. The court adopted it to replace the circuit administrative orders that had required AI disclosure and certification (for example in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and the 19th Circuit), and preempted those orders. Source: The Florida Bar News; the opinion is Supreme Court of Florida case SC2026-0673, with Administrative Order AOSC26-12.
Federal judges: examples
- Judge Brantley Starr, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (May 30, 2023): every attorney files a certificate that either no part of a filing was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy against traditional legal sources.
- Judge Michael M. Baylson, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (June 6, 2023): disclose any use of AI in preparing a filing and certify that every citation has been verified as accurate.
- Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (June 2023, since revised): a party that uses generative AI to research or draft a filing discloses that it did, which tool, and how.
- Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden, U.S. Court of International Trade (June 2023): identify the generative AI program used and the portions drafted with it, and certify that its use did not disclose confidential or business-proprietary information.
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Local Rule AT-3(m): a lawyer who uses generative AI remains bound by Rule 11 and the court's standards of practice and must review and verify any computer-generated content.
Orders like these change often, and federal judges in Florida are not covered by the state rule, so always read the current rules of the judge and court you're filing before. Sources: Ropes & Gray, Fredrikson, Judicature (Duke Law), E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-3. For running lists, see Law360's AI tracker and Ropes & Gray's court order tracker.
Candor's citation check flags citations that may need a second look before you sign, and its court certificate summarizes how AI was used and reviewed on a matter, as a starting point for whatever a court asks you to file. The attorney decides what to file.