Arizona has positioned itself as a national leader in legal innovation, becoming the first state to eliminate the prohibition on nonlawyer ownership of law firms and establishing a regulatory sandbox for legal technology companies. This forward-thinking approach extends to AI regulation, where Arizona balances innovation with robust client protections through its adaptation of existing ethics rules to emerging technologies.
Alabama attorneys are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into their legal practices, from contract review to legal research. While the Alabama State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct establish clear ethical boundaries that govern all technology use, including generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.
In February 2025, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion 705, providing comprehensive guidance on Texas attorneys’ use of generative artificial intelligence. This opinion builds on the work of the Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law (TRAIL), an initiative launched by the Texas State Bar’s Immediate Past President, Cindy Tisdale.
In May 2024, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association jointly released Formal Opinion 2024-200, providing comprehensive guidance on ethical issues regarding attorney use of artificial intelligence. This joint opinion reflects collaboration between the state’s two major bar associations and addresses the full range of AI ethics considerations.
New York has developed one of the most comprehensive frameworks for AI ethics in legal practice. In April 2024, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) released its Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report, and the NYC Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 2024-5. Together, these documents provide extensive guidance for New York attorneys using AI.
On January 19, 2024, the Florida Bar Board of Governors unanimously approved Ethics Opinion 24-1, providing guidance on the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in legal practice. Florida was among the first states to issue formal AI ethics guidance, and Opinion 24-1 has been recognized as a model for other jurisdictions.
California was the first state to approve regulatory guidance for attorney use of generative AI, releasing its “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law” in November 2023. The California State Bar has characterized this guidance as “guiding principles rather than best practices,” reflecting the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology.
The Copyright Battle Over AI # At the heart of modern AI development lies a legal question worth billions: Can AI companies use copyrighted works to train their models without permission or payment?
The New Frontier of Defamation Law # Courts are now testing what attorneys describe as a “new frontier of defamation law” as AI systems increasingly generate false, damaging statements about real people. When ChatGPT falsely accused a radio host of embezzlement, when Bing confused a veteran with a convicted terrorist, when Meta AI claimed a conservative activist participated in the January 6 riot, these weren’t glitches. They represent a fundamental challenge to defamation law built on human publishers and human intent.
The Central Question # Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:“the 26 words that created the internet”, protect AI companies from liability for content their systems generate?