Maryland has taken a measured and thoughtful approach to regulating attorney use of artificial intelligence, applying its well-established Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC) to emerging AI technologies. The state’s legal community, led by the Maryland State Bar Association and the Supreme Court of Maryland (formerly Court of Appeals), emphasizes that existing ethical obligations fully govern AI use while recognizing the need for practical guidance.
Louisiana operates under its own unique legal tradition, the civil law system, which distinguishes it from the common law jurisdictions of other states. As Louisiana attorneys increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into their practices, they must navigate AI ethics within this distinctive legal framework while adhering to the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
Kentucky attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their practices must do so within the framework of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted as part of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules. While the Kentucky Bar Association has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the existing ethical framework provides clear direction for responsible AI use across the Commonwealth.
Kansas attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practices must navigate their ethical obligations under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). While the Kansas Bar Association has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, existing ethical rules establish clear requirements for competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision that apply to all technology use, including generative AI tools.
Iowa attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practices must navigate ethical obligations under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. While the Iowa State Bar Association has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the established ethical framework provides clear direction on competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision as applied to AI tool use.
Indiana has been attentive to AI’s impact on legal practice, with the Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) and Indiana Supreme Court monitoring developments closely. While Indiana has not yet issued AI-specific ethics guidance, the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct provide a robust framework governing attorney use of artificial intelligence, imposing clear duties around competence, confidentiality, and honesty in tribunal proceedings.
Illinois has emerged as a leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism (2Civility) and the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) providing extensive guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. While Illinois has not issued formal AI-specific ethics opinions, the state’s robust professional responsibility framework, including the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and ARDC enforcement, establishes clear boundaries for responsible AI use.
Georgia attorneys must navigate AI integration within the framework of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and guidance from the State Bar of Georgia. While Georgia has not issued a comprehensive AI-specific ethics opinion, the existing professional responsibility rules, particularly those addressing competence, confidentiality, and candor, provide clear guidance for ethical AI use in legal practice.
Attorneys practicing in the District of Columbia face unique ethical considerations when integrating artificial intelligence into their practices. The DC Rules of Professional Conduct, which contain notable variations from the ABA Model Rules, govern AI use by DC Bar members. Given Washington, D.C.’s concentration of federal government lawyers, regulatory practitioners, and major law firms, AI ethics compliance carries particular significance in the District.
Delaware may be geographically small, but its outsized influence on American corporate law makes it a critical jurisdiction for AI ethics guidance. Home to the renowned Court of Chancery and the incorporation domicile for over 65% of Fortune 500 companies, Delaware attorneys practicing corporate, business, and chancery law must apply the highest standards when using artificial intelligence tools. The Delaware State Bar Association and the state’s courts have emphasized that attorneys remain fully responsible for AI-generated work product.
Connecticut has taken a measured approach to artificial intelligence regulation in legal practice, focusing on applying existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI technologies while the state bar monitors developments. The Connecticut Bar Association and state courts have emphasized that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for any AI-generated work product, regardless of the technology’s sophistication.
Colorado has emerged as a thoughtful leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association providing guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. The state’s approach emphasizes practical compliance while maintaining flexibility for attorneys to leverage AI’s benefits responsibly.