The opinions, etc. focus on the use of generative AI to review and draft documents. Common themes across these jurisdictions include the duty of competence (understanding the technology), confidentiality (not entering client secrets into public AI models), and supervision/verification (lawyers must verify all AI outputs for accuracy).

To keep up with the latest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) use and trends in law firms, see our CLE webinars. CLE credit is available in numerous jurisdictions.

_{Originally Published: January 2, 2026             Last updated: July 25, 2026}

Here is the list of state bar associations that have issued specific guidance:

Alaska

• Issuing Body: Alaska Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (April 2025)

• Summary: Affirms that it is ethically permissible for lawyers to use generative AI to assist clients, provided the lawyer understands to a reasonable degree how the technology works, verifies the outputs to prevent hallucinations, and maintains client confidentiality.

• Link: Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1

California

• Issuing Body: The State Bar of California

• Document: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law

• Summary: Initially issued in late 2023, this comprehensive guide addresses duties of confidentiality, competence, and candor. It specifically warns against inputting confidential client information into non-secure AI tools and requires lawyers to review all AI-generated work product. The Bar suggests that, "this Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as 'best practices.'" It was unpdated in May 2026 to specifically address "agentic AI" (AI models capable of planning steps and executing tasks autonomously). The update emphasizes that even with autonomous AI, lawyers cannot delegate legal judgment and must manually review any AI-generated filings or decisions.

• Link: California State Bar Practical Guidance (May 2026); California State Bar Practical Guidance (2023 superceded)

District of Columbia

• Issuing Body: D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee

• Document: Ethics Opinion 388: Ethics Issues in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: Released in April 2024, this opinion emphasizes that lawyers must have a "reasonable understanding" of the technology's capabilities and limitations (specifically hallucinations) and must protect client confidences when using generative AI tools. The opinion make sthe important distinction that, "Lawyers should understand that GAI [generative AI] products are not search engines that accurately report hits on existing data in a constantly updated database. The information available to a GAI product is confined to the dataset on which the GAI has been trained."

• Link: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388

Florida

• Issuing Body: The Florida Bar Board of Governors

• Document: Advisory Opinion 24-1

• Summary: Approved in January 2024, this opinion permits the use of generative AI but mandates that lawyers verify the accuracy of the work product, ensure confidentiality (recommending client consent for third-party AI use involving confidential data), and avoid improper billing practices (e.g., double-billing). The opinion also addresses the use of AI chatbots on attorney websites, advising that, "generative AI chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must comply with restrictions on lawyer advertising..."

• Link: Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1

Illinois

• Issuing Body: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of the Supreme Court of Illinois

• Document: The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

• Summary: Released in late 2025, this guide serves as a practical resource for implementing AI in alignment with ethical duties, including flowcharts and checklists for vetting AI tools.

• Link: ARDC Illinois Attorney's Guide 

Kentucky

• Issuing Body: Kentucky Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion KBA E-457

• Summary: Issued in March 2024, this opinion provides a FAQ-style guide on competence, confidentiality, and billing. It reinforces the lawyer's duty to review the AI output for accuracy and clarifies that lawyers cannot bill for the time spent learning how to use AI, only for the actual benefit provided to the client.

• Link: Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinions

Michigan

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics

• Document: Ethics Opinion JI-155

• Summary: While primarily focused on judicial officers, this opinion (October 2023) establishes that judges and lawyers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including AI, to ensure fair and accurate legal proceedings.

• Link: State Bar of Michigan Opinion JI-155

Mississippi

• Issuing Body: Mississippi Bar

• Document: Ethics Opinion 267 (November 2024)

• Summary: Outlines how attorneys can use AI tools ethically, placing a specific focus on navigating confidentiality risks, managing honest billing practices (billing for actual time spent rather than time saved), and client disclosure.

• Link: Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267

New Jersey

• Issuing Body: New Jersey Courts / Supreme Court of New Jersey

• Document: Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers

• Summary: Released in January 2024, this notice clarifies that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI. It specifically highlights the duty to verify citations (citing the Mata v. Avianca case) and the prohibition against generating false evidence.

• Link: NJ Courts Preliminary Guidelines (PDF)

New Mexico

• Issuing Body: State Bar of New Mexico

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-004 (September 2024)

• Summary: Addresses the ethical duties mapped to AI use, focusing on competence, safeguarding data against third-party self-learning models, and the prohibition against submitting unverified AI output to tribunals.

• Link: State Bar of New Mexico Formal Opinion 2024-004

New York

• Issuing Body: New York State Bar Association (NYSBA)

• Document: Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: An extensive report (April 2024) detailing the impact of AI on the legal profession, offering regulatory guidelines, and suggesting that while no new ethics rules are immediately needed, existing rules (competence, supervision) must be strictly applied.

• Link: Formerly at NYSBA Task Force Report; not currently available online

• Issuing Body: New York City Bar Association (NYCBA)

• Document 1: Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 2024)

  • Summary: General guidance on the ethical use of generative AI, noting that routine embedded AI tools (like those in standard legal research software) may not require client disclosure.

  • Link: Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law

• Document 2: Formal Opinion 2025-6 (December 2025)

  • Summary: Focuses specifically on the use of AI to record, transcribe, and summarize conversations with clients. It stresses that attorneys should obtain informed consent before using AI meeting assistants (like Copilot or Zoom AI), evaluate the privilege/confidentiality risks of the vendor's data retention policies, and independently review AI-generated transcripts for accuracy.

  • Link: Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients

North Carolina

• Issuing Body: North Carolina State Bar Council

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1

• Summary: Adopted in late 2024, this opinion focuses on the "competency" requirement, stating that a lawyer must understand the risks of "hallucinations" and data privacy before utilizing AI tools in practice, stating plainly, "A lawyer may not abrogate her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct by relying upon AI."

• Link: NC State Bar 2024 FEO 1

Oregon

• Issuing Body: Oregon State Bar

• Document: Formal Opinion No. 2025-205 (February 2025)

• Summary: Concludes that Oregon lawyers may use generative AI tools if they take reasonable steps to become competent in the technology. It imposes ongoing obligations to supervise the technology (treating it similarly to a non-lawyer assistant), securely store information to prevent privilege waivers, and consult with clients before using AI if the representation requires it.

• Link: Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2025-205

Pennsylvania

• Issuing Body: Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association

• Document: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

• Summary: This joint opinion outlines best practices, emphasizing that lawyers "must verify all citations and legal analysis" generated by AI and must be transparent with clients about the use of AI if it significantly impacts the representation. It advises lawyers that, "[i]n particular, the use of AI applies to the lawyer’s duties of (1) confidentiality, (2) competence, (3)
  candor, (4) truthfulness, (5) supervision, (6) communication, (7) conflicts of interest, and (8) the unauthorized practice of law..." 

• Link: PBA Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

Texas

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee

• Document: Opinion 705

• Summary: (Addressed in early 2025) This opinion confirms that while attorneys may use AI, they are ultimately responsible for the work product. It specifically warns against "unthinking reliance" on AI outputs and mandates rigorous verification of case law. In conclusion, it advises that, "lawyers should acquire basic technological competence before using any generative AI tool, should always ensure that the tool does not imperil confidential client information, should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool, and should not charge clients for the time “saved” by using a generative AI program."

• Link: Texas Opinion 705

Virginia

• Issuing Body: Supreme Court of Virginia / Virginia State Bar

• Document: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 (November 2025)

• Summary: Clarifies the rules around reasonable fees and generative AI. It states that lawyers are not ethically obligated to reduce a flat fee simply because they completed the work more efficiently using AI. It reinforces a value-based billing approach, so long as the overall fee remains reasonable under the factors of Rule 1.5.

• Link: Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1901

West Virginia

• Issuing Body: Lawyer Disciplinary Board of West Virginia

• Document: Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (June 2024)

• Summary: Emphasizes that AI must "supplement, not replace" legal reasoning. Notably, it takes a strict stance on communication, advising that lawyers should consult with clients prior to using artificial intelligence tools during representation and obtain the client's consent for use in writing.

• Link: Lawyer Disciplinary Board of West Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01

American Bar Association (ABA)

While not a state bar, the ABA's guidance is cited by many states as a baseline.

• Document: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)

• Summary: "Lawyers using GAI tools have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature of GAI. In using GAI tools, lawyers also have other relevant ethical duties, such as those relating to confidentiality, communication with a client, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward the tribunal, supervisory responsibilities regarding others in the law office using the technology and those outside the law office providing GAI services, and charging reasonable fees. With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected. 

• Link: ABA Formal Opinion 512

The post Ethics Opinions Covering Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The opinions, etc. focus on the use of generative AI to review and draft documents. Common themes across these jurisdictions include the duty of competence (understanding the technology), confidentiality (not entering client secrets into public AI models), and supervision/verification (lawyers must verify all AI outputs for accuracy).

Here is the list of state bar associations that have issued specific guidance:

California

• Issuing Body: The State Bar of California

• Document: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law

• Summary: Issued in late 2023, this comprehensive guide addresses duties of confidentiality, competence, and candor. It specifically warns against inputting confidential client information into non-secure AI tools and requires lawyers to review all AI-generated work product. The Bar suggests that, "this Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as 'best practices.'"

• Link: California State Bar Practical Guidance

District of Columbia

• Issuing Body: D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee

• Document: Ethics Opinion 388: Ethics Issues in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: Released in April 2024, this opinion emphasizes that lawyers must have a "reasonable understanding" of the technology's capabilities and limitations (specifically hallucinations) and must protect client confidences when using generative AI tools. The opinion make sthe important distinction that, "Lawyers should understand that GAI [generative AI] products are not search engines that accurately report hits on existing data in a constantly updated database. The information available to a GAI product is confined to the dataset on which the GAI has been trained."

• Link: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388

Florida

• Issuing Body: The Florida Bar Board of Governors

• Document: Advisory Opinion 24-1

• Summary: Approved in January 2024, this opinion permits the use of generative AI but mandates that lawyers verify the accuracy of the work product, ensure confidentiality (recommending client consent for third-party AI use involving confidential data), and avoid improper billing practices (e.g., double-billing). The opinion also addresses the use of AI chatbots on attorney websites, advising that, "generative AI chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must comply with restrictions on lawyer advertising..."

• Link: Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1

Illinois

• Issuing Body: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of the Supreme Court of Illinois

• Document: The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

• Summary: Released in late 2025, this guide serves as a practical resource for implementing AI in alignment with ethical duties, including flowcharts and checklists for vetting AI tools.

• Link: ARDC Illinois Attorney's Guide 

Kentucky

• Issuing Body: Kentucky Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion KBA E-457

• Summary: Issued in March 2024, this opinion provides a FAQ-style guide on competence, confidentiality, and billing. It reinforces the lawyer's duty to review the AI output for accuracy and clarifies that lawyers cannot bill for the time spent learning how to use AI, only for the actual benefit provided to the client.

• Link: Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinions

Michigan

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics

• Document: Ethics Opinion JI-155

• Summary: While primarily focused on judicial officers, this opinion (October 2023) establishes that judges and lawyers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including AI, to ensure fair and accurate legal proceedings.

• Link: State Bar of Michigan Opinion JI-155

New Jersey

• Issuing Body: New Jersey Courts / Supreme Court of New Jersey

• Document: Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers

• Summary: Released in January 2024, this notice clarifies that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI. It specifically highlights the duty to verify citations (citing the Mata v. Avianca case) and the prohibition against generating false evidence.

• Link: NJ Courts Preliminary Guidelines (PDF)

New York

• Issuing Body: New York State Bar Association (NYSBA)

• Document: Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: An extensive report (April 2024) detailing the impact of AI on the legal profession, offering regulatory guidelines, and suggesting that while no new ethics rules are immediately needed, existing rules (competence, supervision) must be strictly applied.

• Link: Formerly at NYSBA Task Force Report; not currently available online

North Carolina

• Issuing Body: North Carolina State Bar Council

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1

• Summary: Adopted in late 2024, this opinion focuses on the "competency" requirement, stating that a lawyer must understand the risks of "hallucinations" and data privacy before utilizing AI tools in practice, stating plainly, "A lawyer may not abrogate her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct by relying upon AI."

• Link: NC State Bar 2024 FEO 1

Pennsylvania

• Issuing Body: Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association

• Document: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

• Summary: This joint opinion outlines best practices, emphasizing that lawyers "must verify all citations and legal analysis" generated by AI and must be transparent with clients about the use of AI if it significantly impacts the representation. It advises lawyers that, "[i]n particular, the use of AI applies to the lawyer’s duties of (1) confidentiality, (2) competence, (3)
  candor, (4) truthfulness, (5) supervision, (6) communication, (7) conflicts of interest, and (8) the unauthorized practice of law..." 

• Link: PBA Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

Texas

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee

• Document: Opinion 705

• Summary: (Addressed in early 2025) This opinion confirms that while attorneys may use AI, they are ultimately responsible for the work product. It specifically warns against "unthinking reliance" on AI outputs and mandates rigorous verification of case law. In conclusion, it advises that, "lawyers should acquire basic technological competence before using any generative AI tool, should always ensure that the tool does not imperil confidential client information, should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool, and should not charge clients for the time “saved” by using a generative AI program."

• Link: Texas Opinion 705

American Bar Association (ABA)

While not a state bar, the ABA's guidance is cited by many states as a baseline.

• Document: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)

• Summary: "Lawyers using GAI tools have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature of GAI. In using GAI tools, lawyers also have other relevant ethical duties, such as those relating to confidentiality, communication with a client, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward the tribunal, supervisory responsibilities regarding others in the law office using the technology and those outside the law office providing GAI services, and charging reasonable fees. With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected. 

• Link: ABA Formal Opinion 512

The post Ethics Opinions Covering Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

In that order, counsel in the Northern District of California Oracle v. Google case agreed to Judge William Alsup’s proposed March 25, 2016 order that banned them from researching jurors’ internet presence. Oracle v. Google, No. C-10-03561, Document 1573 (N.D.Cal March 25, 2016), http://linkon.in/jurorgoogleoracle. If counsel had failed to agree with the proposed order, the judge stated that he would inform the jurors they were being researched by counsel.

The judge acknowledged that it is not unethical for counsel to conduct Internet searches on prospective jurors and to also view their public social media profiles. However, he then went on to say,  “That such searches are not unethical does not translate into an inalienable right to conduct them.”

He also discussed ABA Formal Opinion No. 466, where the ABA considered the extent to which an attorney may conduct Internet searches of jurors and prospective jurors without running afoul of ABA Model Rule 3.5(b) (which prohibits ex parte communication with jurors). In that Formal Opinion, the ABA said that judges may limit the scope of the searches that counsel could perform regarding the juror’s social media “[i]f a judge believes it to be necessary, under the circumstances of a particular matter . . . .” 

The judge based his juror research ban on three reasons:

• First, if they knew lawyers were researching them, Judge Alsup feared that jurors would stray from the court’s admonition to refrain from conducting internet searches on the lawyers and the case.
• Second, if the lawyers’ research uncovered certain juror preferences, they might shape their trial arguments and witness examinations to make improper personal appeals to the jurors based on those preferences.
• Third, the judge wanted to protect the privacy of the venire.

In the order, Judge Alsup discussed several ethics opinions related to lawyers conducting juror research, including:  “Formal opinion. No. 2013-189, issued by the Oregon state bar provides, unlike the ABA or the ABCNY, that a lawyer may affirmatively request access to private aspects of a juror’s social media profiles [emphasis added], provided the lawyer accurately represents his or her role in a case when asked by the juror.”

We think he misstated Oregon’s Formal opinion. No. 2013-189.

In footnote two, on page 578-579, the Oregon opinion actually said:

Although a lawyer may review a juror’s publicly available information on social networking websites, communication with jurors before, during, and after a proceeding is generally prohibited. Accordingly, a lawyer may not [emphasis added] send a request to a juror to access non-public personal information on a social networking website, nor may a lawyer ask an agent do to do so [emphasis added]. See Oregon RPC 3.5(b) (prohibiting ex parte communications with a juror during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order); Oregon RPC 3.5(c) (prohibiting communication with a juror after discharge if (1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order; (2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or (3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment); Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(4) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). See, generally, §61:808, ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct and cases cited therein.

Read the Oregon Formal Opinion for yourself and see if you agree that Judge Alsup misinterpreted the Oregon Formal Opinion. You can find the Oregon Formal Opinion at: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2013-189.pdf.

The post Oracle v. Google: The Social Media Research Ban appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

• A lawyer may always view the public portion of a person’s social media profile and any public posts made by a person through social media.
• A lawyer may always view the public portion of a person’s social media profile and any public posts made by a person through social media.
• A lawyer acting on behalf of a client may not request permission to view a restricted portion of a social media profile or website of a person the lawyer knows to be represented by counsel in that same matter, without obtaining consent from that counsel.

[Note, the Committee stated, “Similarly, a lawyer may view or utilize information to which the lawyer already has access through the lawyer’s social media connections.” This might mean that if the lawyer was already Facebook friends with the represented party before litigation ensued, viewing the restricted portion would not be unethical because the lawyer already had access to it.]

• When requesting or obtaining information from a third person who has access to restricted portions of a social media profile or website of a party or witness, a lawyer is subject to the same standards as when requesting any other information in the hands of a third person.
• A lawyer may not request permission to view a restricted portion of a social media profile or website of a judge while the judge is presiding over a case in which the lawyer is involved as counsel or as a party, nor may a lawyer seek to communicate ex parte with a judge through social media concerning a matter or issue pending before the judge.
• A lawyer may not request permission to view a restricted portion of a social media profile or website of a prospective or sitting juror. 

[Note, the Committee stated that if the social media service has a technical feature whereby the social media service automatically communicates to the juror that you viewed their public profile, this would not be considered an impermissible communication by you to the juror. Various jurisdictions disagree with this, but the ABA agrees. However, the Committee stated that this could potentially violate Colo. RPC 4.4(a) if the lawyer knew about the automatic notification, engaged in repetitive viewing of the profile with no legitimate, and it rose to the level of harassment or intimidation.

• A lawyer must never use any form of deception to gain access to a restricted portion of a social media profile or website. 

The Committee, explained, “As stated in an article in the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel Newsletter, "donning an alias and ‘friending’ someone on Facebook to gain access to restricted information is prohibited."]

• Finally, a lawyer may not avoid prohibitions relating to the use of social media for investigative purposes by delegating investigative tasks to others.

[Note: The Committee recognizes that, “A lawyer may advise a client concerning the client’s legal rights to access a restricted portion of a social media profile or website. Also, consistent with Colo. RPC 4.2, a lawyer may advise a client concerning direct communications through social media that the client is legally entitled to engage in with another party the lawyer knows to be represented by counsel. See Colo. RPC 4.2, cmt. [4]. However, a lawyer may not simply use the client as a means of communicating directly with a represented party in circumvention of Rule 4.2. See also Colo. RPC 8.4(a).”]

To read the full opinion, see: http://linkon.in/cobarsminvest127.

The post Summary of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 127: “Use of Social Media for Investigative Purposes” appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Follow us:       

Share this article:    

The following is a list of the currently available legal ethics opinions and guidelines:

• The New York State Bar Social Media Ethics Guidelines of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section (2019)
• The Professional Ethics Committee of the State Bar of Texas - Opinion 671 (March 2018)
• DC Bar Association Ethics Opinion 371 (November 2016)
• The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 127 (September 2015)
• The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004 is now The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2015-193
• Florida Bar Proposed Advisory Opinion 14-1 [Affirmed as modified by the Professional Ethics Committee on June 25, 2015.]
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Opinion 2014-300
• Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee Opinion 2014-5 (July 2014)
• Massachusetts Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 2014-5 (May 2014)
• American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 466
• State Bar of California Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004
• New York County Lawyer's Association Formal Ethics Opinion 745
• Oregon State Bar Association Formal Opinion 2013-189
• New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion #2012-13/05
• Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-434
• New York City Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2012-02
• New York County Lawyer's Association Formal Ethics Opinion 743
• San Diego County Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2011-2
• New York City Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-02
• New York State Bar Ethics Opinion #843
• Missouri Bar Association Informal Opinion 2009-0003
• Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2009-02
• Oregon State Bar Association Formal Opinion 2005-164

For a more detailed discussion of Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2009-02 see our article, "Social Networking Sites are Valuable Tools For Lawyers: But Beware the Ethical Pitfalls."

For a comparison of New York State Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-02 and Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2009-02, see our article, "New York State and Philadelphia Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinions Address Lawyers' Use of Social Media Sites for Investigative and Background Research."

Also see our collection of cases related to attorneys' use of social media for investigative and background research  in various court jurisdictions.

The post Legal Ethics Opinions Related to Attorneys’ Use of Social Media Profiles for Investigative and Background Research appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Share this artice:          

California Attorneys and Paralegals can earn one hour of Self-Study Legal Ethics MCLE credit by submitting this quiz after reading the ABA's Formal Opinion 10-457.

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 10-457 Covering Attorneys' Use of Web Sites to Market Their Practices

The post American Bar Association Formal Opinion 10-457 | California Legal Ethics MCLE appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.