Wyoming is home to the smallest bar in the United States, with approximately 2,100 active attorneys serving a state of nearly 100,000 square miles. This creates a uniquely personal legal community where professional reputation and relationships carry exceptional weight. While the Wyoming State Bar has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools.
Wisconsin has been monitoring AI developments in legal practice, with the State Bar of Wisconsin providing educational resources while existing Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR) Chapter 20 governs attorney conduct. Wisconsin attorneys must navigate AI use through established ethics rules that impose clear obligations around competence, confidentiality, and honesty that directly apply to artificial intelligence integration in legal practice.
West Virginia attorneys navigate a unique legal landscape shaped by the state’s geography, economy, and tight-knit communities. While the West Virginia State Bar has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools. This page provides a comprehensive framework for ethical AI integration in West Virginia legal practice.
Washington became one of the first states to provide comprehensive AI ethics guidance with the release of Advisory Opinion 202505 addressing artificial intelligence-enabled tools in law practice. The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Committee on Professional Ethics issued this landmark opinion, providing Washington attorneys with clear guidance on integrating AI technology while maintaining ethical compliance.
Virginia attorneys navigating artificial intelligence must apply the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct to emerging AI technologies. While the Virginia State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the existing ethical framework provides clear direction for responsible AI integration in legal practice. Virginia’s proximity to Washington, D.C., and its concentration of federal practitioners makes AI ethics compliance particularly important for the Commonwealth’s legal community.
Vermont’s small bar and rural practice environment create a distinctive context for AI ethics in legal practice. With approximately 3,000 active attorneys serving a population of 650,000, Vermont lawyers often handle diverse practice areas across wide geographic regions. While the Vermont Bar Association has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools.
Utah has positioned itself as a national leader in legal innovation, most notably through its groundbreaking Office of Legal Services Innovation and Regulatory Sandbox program. This forward-thinking approach extends to artificial intelligence, where Utah has embraced technological advancement while maintaining essential ethical safeguards. Utah attorneys operate in a uniquely innovation-friendly environment, but must still adhere to core professional responsibilities when using AI tools.
Tennessee has demonstrated awareness of AI’s growing impact on legal practice, with the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) and Board of Professional Responsibility monitoring developments in this rapidly evolving area. While Tennessee has not yet issued formal AI-specific ethics guidance, the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct provide comprehensive standards that govern attorney use of artificial intelligence, including duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision.
South Dakota’s legal profession serves a geographically vast state with a small, close-knit bar. While the State Bar of South Dakota has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance, attorneys must apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct to their use of generative AI tools. This page provides a comprehensive framework for ethical AI integration in South Dakota legal practice.
South Carolina has taken a traditional approach to attorney AI regulation, relying on existing Rules of Professional Conduct to govern AI use while the South Carolina Bar monitors technological developments. While no AI-specific ethics opinions have been issued, South Carolina attorneys must apply established ethical principles, competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor, to their use of artificial intelligence tools.
Rhode Island, the nation’s smallest state, has an integrated bar where the Supreme Court directly regulates attorney conduct through the Disciplinary Board. While Rhode Island has not yet issued AI-specific guidance, the state’s tight-knit legal community and direct Supreme Court oversight create a unique environment for navigating AI ethics. This page provides a framework for ethical AI use under the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct.
Oregon has not yet issued formal AI-specific guidance for attorneys, but the Oregon State Bar (OSB) has signaled awareness of AI’s impact on legal practice. Oregon attorneys must navigate AI use through the lens of existing Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), which impose clear duties around competence, confidentiality, and candor that directly govern how lawyers may ethically integrate artificial intelligence into their practices.