By The 2026 items, by bar (read October 22, 2026)
Last updated October 23, 2026. A row is here only if we opened the bar's own document that day. The date column carries a date only when the bar's document prints it. Status means Final (the bar says it is issued or approved), Proposal (published for comment, no final version found).
| Bar | Number or title | Date | Status | What it requires | Primary source read today | Our state page |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama State Bar | Formal Opinion 2026-01 (number from the bar's file name FO-2026-01) | Date not published by the bar | Final | Existing rules apply to AI. Verify every citation an AI tool produces. Client information typed into a tool counts as a disclosure, so check the tool's data terms and document consent where risk remains. Time saved by AI is not billable; time spent reviewing the output is. | Alabama State Bar, AI best practices PDF | State page |
| State Bar of California | 2026 Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI (replaces the 2023 version) | May 14, 2026 | Final | Restates existing duties and adds agentic AI: no document goes to a court without attorney review and approval, and AI systems may not file documents, communicate with the court or make representations for the lawyer. It is guidance, not a numbered ethics opinion. | State Bar of California, ethics technology resources<br>Board of Trustees agenda item 6.3 with the guidance text | State page |
| State Bar of California, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct | Proposed comment amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 | Mar 13, 2026 | Proposal (comment period closed May 4, 2026) | COPRAC approved new and modified comments on AI for six rules for a 45-day public comment period. They change comments, not rule text; the Board still has to act and any change to the rules needs California Supreme Court adoption. We did not find a final version. | Board of Trustees agenda item 6.3, update on the rule comments | State page |
| New York City Bar Association | Formal Opinion 2026-2 | Aug 5, 2026 (the bar's press release is dated Aug 17, 2026) | Final | For calls with people who are not clients, the default is not to use AI to record, transcribe or summarize them without a good reason in that instance. Get the consent of all other parties before recording, and know how to switch recording off. | NYC Bar, Formal Opinion 2026-2 (PDF)<br>NYC Bar, report page | State page |
| Oregon State Bar | Formal Opinion 2026-208, Chatbots and AI Agent Communications | Approved by the Board of Governors in February 2026; the bar prints no day | Final | Lawyers may use chatbots for client intake and marketing, qualified. Understand how the chatbot stores information, confirm client information is not used to train it, do diligence on the vendor, keep it from misleading people about the lawyer's services, and stay responsible for supervision. | Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2026-208 (PDF) | State page |
| Virginia State Bar | Proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902 | May 27, 2026 (bar notice); comments due Jul 10, 2026 | Proposal (comment deadline passed; we found no final version) | A lawyer who sees material AI-hallucinated misstatements in an opponent's filing should bring them to the court, and may first ask opposing counsel to correct them. Reporting the lawyer to the bar turns on Rule 8.3(a): reliable information of a violation that raises a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness or fitness. | Virginia State Bar, notice of proposed LEO 1902<br>Proposed LEO 1902 draft (PDF) | State page |
How to read the table
- Final is not the same as binding. California's 2026 guidance and the Alabama document are practice guidance built on the existing Rules of Professional Conduct. The New York City, Oregon and Virginia items are ethics opinions interpreting those rules.
- Each item answers a different question. Alabama covers billing and client data, California covers agentic AI, Oregon covers chatbots, New York City covers recording calls, Virginia covers opposing counsel's AI errors.
- Proposals can change. Do not plan around California's proposed comments or Virginia's draft 1902 as if they were final text. Check the bar before relying on either.
- City and state bars are different bodies. The New York City Bar opinion binds nobody by itself; New York State's own report is covered on the New York state page.
What is not in the table
Only items we could open and read on October 22, 2026 are listed. A 2026 item known only from a news article, a law firm note or a tracker is left out on purpose. The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 is a national opinion from 2024 and not part of this 2026 list. For every other state, the state-by-state hub shows what each bar has issued and how we checked it.
Next steps for a firm
This is operational information, not legal advice. Check the bar, the number and the date before you rely on a row.
- Open the primary link in the row for your jurisdiction and read the document, not our summary.
- If you use AI notetakers on calls with opposing parties or witnesses, read the New York City opinion and your own bar's rule on recording consent.
- If you run a client-intake chatbot, read Oregon's opinion on vendor diligence and misleading statements.
- Keep an AI use log for citations you checked. Our citation verification log template is a start.
- Pair this page with the court AI disclosure cheat sheet for filing-level rules.
Sources
- Alabama State Bar, AI best practices PDF, read October 22, 2026
- State Bar of California, ethics technology resources, read October 22, 2026
- Board of Trustees agenda item 6.3 with the guidance text, read October 22, 2026
- NYC Bar, Formal Opinion 2026-2 (PDF), read October 22, 2026
- NYC Bar, report page, read October 22, 2026
- Oregon State Bar, Formal Opinion 2026-208 (PDF), read October 22, 2026
- Virginia State Bar, notice of proposed LEO 1902, read October 22, 2026
- Proposed LEO 1902 draft (PDF), read October 22, 2026
Questions and answers
Which bars issued AI ethics opinions or guidance in 2026?
Of the items we read in the bar's own document on October 22, 2026: the Alabama State Bar (Formal Opinion 2026-01), the State Bar of California (2026 Practical Guidance, approved May 14, 2026), the New York City Bar (Formal Opinion 2026-2, August 5, 2026) and the Oregon State Bar (Formal Opinion 2026-208). The Virginia State Bar published proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902 for comment on May 27, 2026.
What does the New York City Bar's 2026 AI opinion say?
Formal Opinion 2026-2 covers calls with people who are not clients. The default practice should be not to use AI tools to record, transcribe or summarize them absent a good reason in a particular instance, and the lawyer should get the consent of all other parties before recording.
Is Virginia's Legal Ethics Opinion 1902 final?
We found no final version. It was published as a proposed opinion on May 27, 2026 with comments due July 10, 2026. Read it as a draft and check the Virginia State Bar for its status.
Why do some rows say the date was not published?
The Alabama and Oregon documents do not print an issue date. Oregon prints that its Board of Governors approved the opinion in February 2026; Alabama prints no date at all. We do not fill the gap from press coverage.
Does a final opinion bind every lawyer in that state?
Not by itself. Opinions and guidance interpret the Rules of Professional Conduct; the rules and the court that adopts them are what bind. Confirm the scope with your own bar before relying on an opinion.
Operational information, not legal advice. Each row was read from the bar's own document on October 22, 2026; opinions and proposals change, so confirm with the bar before you rely on one. Prepared with AI assistance from the cited primary texts and reviewed by AI Vortex.