The Florida Bar issued Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1 in January 2024, making Florida one of the earliest states to formally address AI ethics for attorneys. The opinion provides detailed guidance on billing, confidentiality, and court disclosure — establishing Florida as a leading jurisdiction on AI ethics alongside California and New York.
Florida's opinion is particularly notable for its strong stance on confidentiality: attorneys are effectively prohibited from using consumer AI tools with client data. The opinion also supports court-mandated AI disclosure, reflecting a trend that multiple Florida courts have independently adopted through standing orders.
What the Bar Says
Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1 (January 2024) addresses AI through Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality), and 4-5.3 (supervision). The opinion holds that attorneys must understand AI tools and their limitations before using them. Rule 4-5.3 places AI-generated output in the same category as work by nonlawyer assistants — requiring review, verification, and ultimate attorney responsibility. The opinion warns specifically about AI hallucinations: fabricated case citations, invented statutes, and inaccurate legal analysis. Attorneys who file AI-generated work without independent verification face discipline and sanctions.
Billing Implications
Florida's opinion states that attorneys cannot bill AI-generated work at the same rate as attorney-performed work without disclosure. Fees must be reasonable under Rule 1.5. If AI reduces the time to complete a task, the billing should reflect that reduction. The opinion does not ban billing for AI-assisted work but requires transparency — clients must understand how AI affected the work and the fee. AI tool costs may be passed to clients but must be clearly identified as technology expenses, not embedded in hourly rates. Florida aligns with Arizona and Colorado on the principle that AI efficiency should benefit clients.
Confidentiality Rules
Florida provides extensive guidance on protecting confidential client information in AI prompts. The opinion effectively prohibits inputting client data into consumer AI tools — specifically flagging free-tier platforms that use input data for model training. Attorneys must evaluate whether AI tools meet Rule 1.6 confidentiality standards before any use with client information. The opinion recommends using enterprise AI tools with contractual data protections, conducting vendor due diligence, and maintaining records of AI tool evaluation. This is one of the strongest confidentiality positions any state bar has taken on AI.
What's Still Unclear
The opinion is a "proposed" advisory opinion, which means it carries significant persuasive weight but is not a binding rule. The Florida Bar has not yet addressed AI-specific CLE requirements, firm-level AI governance mandates, or practice-area-specific guidance. The interaction between Florida's AI ethics opinion and the state's strong consumer protection laws (including Florida's Digital Bill of Rights) remains unexplored. Multiple Florida federal courts have adopted AI disclosure standing orders independently, creating a patchwork of disclosure requirements. See Florida's AI regulation page for the broader landscape.
The Bottom Line: Florida's Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1 sets a high bar: no client data in consumer AI tools, transparent billing, attorney verification of all AI output, and support for court-mandated disclosure.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.