What each opinion is and says
| Bar and document | Date | What it says, in short |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, reasonable fees and generative AI | Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia Nov. 24, 2025 | Addresses billing: time-based fees such as hourly can only rest on actual time spent, and the opinion discusses the limits for non-hourly fees when AI makes work much faster. It is a fee opinion; it does not set a confidentiality rule for AI tools. |
| Florida: Ethics Opinion 24-1 | Jan. 19, 2024 (advisory, not binding) | Lawyers may use generative AI but must protect client confidentiality, check the program’s data retention, sharing and self-learning policies, verify work product, avoid improper billing, and label client-facing chatbots as AI. It recommends the client’s informed consent before using a third-party program if confidential information would be disclosed. |
| North Carolina: 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 | Adopted Nov. 1, 2024 | A lawyer may use AI if the lawyer uses it competently, securely to protect client confidentiality, and with proper supervision of its work product. |
| Texas: Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 | Feb. 2025 | Lawyers who use generative AI need a reasonable, current understanding of it, must protect confidential information and verify output. In typical hourly arrangements a lawyer can charge for actual time spent using and checking the tool, not for time “saved.” |
| California: Practical Guidance on generative AI | Revised version approved May 14, 2026 (replaces Nov. 2023 version) | A lawyer must not input client confidential information into a tool that may present material confidentiality or security risks without informed client consent. The 2026 version adds agentic AI and says diligence must match the system’s access and autonomy. |
| ABA: Formal Opinion 512 | July 29, 2024 | The national baseline the state documents build on; see our Opinion 512 checklist. |
Summaries are ours, from each bar’s own text, read November 14, 2026. They are not legal advice. Advisory opinions differ in weight from rules adopted by a state’s highest court; check which kind yours is.
Using this for your own firm
- Find your bar’s text.If your state is not listed, search your state bar’s ethics opinions page; this tracker covers only the five above plus the ABA.
- Note its date.Guidance is being revised, as California’s 2026 update shows. Record the date of the version you relied on.
- Match the tool to the duty.For each AI tool, write down where client information goes, whether the vendor may train on it, and who at the vendor can see it.
- Ask your bar if unsure.Many bars run an ethics hotline.
Where AdminOnsite fits
None of these opinions tells a firm to buy anything, and AdminOnsite makes no claim that it satisfies any bar’s opinion. The confidentiality questions they raise turn on where client information goes. With AdminOnsite the AI runs on a Mac mini in your office, so the files the AI works on are not sent to an AI provider; AdminOnsite staff with remote access are the one service provider to list. Whether consent or other steps are needed in your state is for you and your bar. Related: on-premise AI for law firms and AI for small law firms.
Questions
Has the Virginia State Bar issued an opinion on AI?
Yes: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 on reasonable fees and generative AI, which the Supreme Court of Virginia approved on November 24, 2025. It concerns fees rather than confidentiality.
Do lawyers need client consent to use generative AI?
It depends on the bar. Florida recommends informed consent before using a third-party program if confidential information would be disclosed, and California says not to input confidential information into a tool with material risks without informed consent. Check your own bar.
Can a lawyer bill hourly for time AI saved?
Texas Opinion 705 says a lawyer may charge for the actual time spent using and checking the tool but not for time saved. Virginia’s Opinion 1901 says time-based fees can only rest on actual time spent.
Did California update its AI guidance?
Yes. The State Bar’s Board of Trustees approved a revised Practical Guidance on May 14, 2026, which replaces the November 2023 version and addresses agentic AI.
Does AdminOnsite make a firm compliant with these opinions?
No. We make no compliance claims. The box keeps client files the AI works on in your office; what your bar requires remains yours to determine.
Sources, checked November 14, 2026
- ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 29, 2024)
- Supreme Court of Virginia, order approving Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Nov. 24, 2025)
- The Florida Bar, Ethics Opinion 24-1 (Jan. 19, 2024)
- North Carolina State Bar, 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice (adopted Nov. 1, 2024)
- Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas, Opinion 705 (Feb. 2025)
- State Bar of California, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law (approved by the Board of Trustees May 14, 2026)