On this page · 9 sections
- Key facts
- Which bars have ruled on AI in lawyer marketing?
- What must an AI chatbot on a law firm website say?
- Can a lawyer say their AI is better than another firm’s?
- Do the solicitation rules reach AI outreach and intake?
- What do the opinions say about AI and fees?
- Which AI opinions say nothing about marketing?
- How did we code these opinions, and what is missing?
- What this means for your firm
Our index holds AI ethics guidance from 14 jurisdictions: the ABA, the District of Columbia and 12 states. Five states speak directly to marketing or chatbots: Alabama, Florida, New York, Oregon and Washington. Five more mention advertising or intake only in passing. Four say nothing about it.
Key facts
- 14 jurisdictions are in the AI sub-index: the ABA, the District of Columbia and 12 states.
- Only Florida and New York City apply the advertising rules to AI-made content, and only Florida says outright that a firm cannot claim its AI is superior unless the claim is objectively verifiable.
- 11 of the 14 discuss how AI affects fees.
- Kentucky’s E-457 says in terms that it does not address the advertising rules.
- Texas Opinion 705, D.C. Opinion 388 and North Carolina’s 2024 FEO 1 do not discuss chatbots, AI-made ads or intake.
Which bars have ruled on AI in lawyer marketing?
Five states speak directly to it. Florida, New York City, Oregon, Alabama and Washington each say something about chatbots, AI-made ads or intake. The ABA, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia mention advertising or intake in passing. D.C., Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas cover other duties, mainly fees and confidentiality.
| Jurisdiction | Opinion | Date | Chatbot says it is AI | AI-made ads | Intake and solicitation | Superiority claims | Prospect confidentiality | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | Ethics Op. 24-1 | 2024-01-19 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| New York City Bar | Formal Op. 2024-5 | 2024-08 | Yes | Yes | Yes | In passing | No | Yes |
| Oregon | Formal Op. 2026-208 | 2026-02 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Alabama | Formal Op. 2026-01 | 2026 | Yes | In passing | No | In passing | No | Yes |
| Washington | Advisory Op. 202505 | 2025 | In passing | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| ABA | Formal Op. 512 | 2024-07-29 | No | In passing | No | No | No | Yes |
| California | Practical guidance | 2026-05-14 | No | No | In passing | No | No | Yes |
| New Jersey | Preliminary guidelines | 2024-01-24 | No | In passing | No | No | No | In passing |
| Pennsylvania | Joint Formal Op. 2024-200 | 2024 | No | In passing | No | No | No | Yes |
| West Virginia | L.E.O. 2024-01 | 2024-06-14 | Not read | In passing | Not read | In passing | Not read | Not read |
| District of Columbia | Op. 388 | 2024 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Kentucky | KBA E-457 | 2024-03-15 | No | Left out | No | No | No | Yes |
| North Carolina | 2024 FEO 1 | 2024-11-01 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Texas | Op. 705 | 2025-02 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
The table’s conclusion: only five jurisdictions answer the chatbot and marketing questions in their own words, and the rest of the AI guidance leaves advertising to the existing rules.
“Yes” means the opinion answers the question. “In passing” means it names the issue without answering it. “Left out” means it says it does not cover it. “Not read” means the official copy is an image-only scan we could not read by machine.
What must an AI chatbot on a law firm website say?
Four opinions say a chatbot should say what it is. Florida says a lawyer must tell prospects they are talking to an AI program. Oregon and New York City warn that a chatbot that hides what it is can mislead. Alabama says a chatbot giving legal advice without saying it is not an attorney may be unauthorized practice of law. Florida: “a lawyer must inform prospective clients that they are communicating with an AI program and not with a lawyer or law firm employee” (Florida Bar 24-1). The opinion is advisory. New York City: a chatbot “may fail to disclose that it is not a lawyer or may attempt or appear to provide legal advice” (City Bar 2024-5). Oregon: “Lawyers must be careful that chatbots do not mislead clients or prospective clients about their expertise, experience, or past results.” (Oregon 2026-208). Alabama: “If the chatbot provides specific legal advice without flagging that it is not an attorney and without attorney review of its responses, this may constitute” (Alabama 2026-01). Washington asks for a different notice, a disclaimer that no lawyer-client relationship exists yet: “lawyers using “chat bots” to assist with client intake by gathering preliminary information, should consider the use of appropriate disclaimers of an attorney-client relationship” (WSBA 202505).
Can a lawyer say their AI is better than another firm’s?
Only Florida answers this head-on. A lawyer may advertise the use of generative AI but cannot claim it is superior to other lawyers’ AI unless the claim is objectively verifiable. Oregon adds that a chatbot must not mislead people about the firm’s expertise, experience or past results. Florida: a lawyer “cannot claim their generative AI is superior to those used by other lawyers or law firms unless the lawyer’s claims are objectively verifiable” (Florida Bar 24-1).
Do the solicitation rules reach AI outreach and intake?
Two opinions say yes. New York City says a lawyer must not use generative AI to find prospects and send solicitations the rules forbid, or to pose as a real person. Oregon says automated tools can run into Rule 7.3(a), which bars soliciting a person who cannot exercise reasonable judgment, so a lawyer should review chats and interview each prospect. New York City: a lawyer must not use generative AI “to search the internet for potential clients and send solicitations that would otherwise be prohibited under the Rules” (City Bar 2024-5). Florida adds that a lawyer is responsible if a chatbot “communicates in a manner that is inappropriately intrusive or coercive” (Florida Bar 24-1).
What do the opinions say about AI and fees?
11 of the 14 discuss fees, and the common thread is billing for time actually spent. Texas and D.C. say an hourly lawyer may charge for the time really worked, not the time AI saved. Kentucky says a lawyer should consider lowering the fee when AI cuts the work. Texas: a lawyer “a lawyer will likely be able to charge the client for the actual time the lawyer spends using a generative AI program” (Texas Opinion 705). D.C.: “lawyers whose fee agreements provide for fees based solely on time spent may only bill for the time the lawyers actually spend” (D.C. Opinion 388).
Which AI opinions say nothing about marketing?
Four of the 14 never reach chatbots, AI-made ads or intake. The D.C., Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas opinions cover competence, confidentiality, supervision and fees. Kentucky says it leaves the advertising rules to another day. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 names Rule 7.1 only as a place where more issues may surface. Kentucky: “we do not address Kentucky’s Advertising Rules which may come into play if a lawyer intends to advertise the use of AI” (KBA E-457). ABA: “additional issues may surface, including those found in Model Rule 7.1” (ABA Formal Opinion 512).
How did we code these opinions, and what is missing?
- Six questions, one answer each. Does a chatbot have to say it is an AI? Do the ad rules reach AI-made ads? Does AI intake raise solicitation limits? Can a firm claim its AI is better? Does the opinion cover prospects’ confidentiality in chatbots and marketing tools? Does it cover fees? We code each opinion yes, in passing, no or left out, from the opinion’s own text.
- Where we read them. Each link goes to the bar’s or court’s own text. Two exceptions: the ABA’s site blocks automated reads and Pennsylvania’s bar-hosted PDF was not available, so we read copies of those two and say so in the record.
- What is missing. This is the sub-index of the opinions we have read, not every AI opinion in the country. A bar missing here may simply not have been read yet.
- Free data. The same coding is in the open ethics opinions dataset and its API.
What this means for your firm
- Label your chatbot. Say it is an AI, say it is not a lawyer, and keep it to general information.
- Keep a lawyer in the loop. Review chats, and treat anyone who shares details as a prospect whose information you must protect.
- Prove it or don’t say it. Skip “best AI” and “smartest intake” claims unless you can show them.
We build these opinions into the ads, pages and intake flows we run for law firms, in your state. See where your firm stands, or get a free review.
Reviewed by our rules reviewer. Marketing information, not legal advice. Summaries are ours; read the full opinion and confirm with your state bar and your own counsel before you rely on it.