The Alabama State Bar has joined a growing number of jurisdictions providing formal guidance on lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence. Formal Opinion 2026-01, Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules, does not create new ethical obligations. Instead, it explains how longstanding duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct apply when lawyers use generative AI and emerging agentic AI tools in practice.

Below are answers to some of the most important questions for law firms and legal departments.

Why did the Alabama State Bar issue this guidance?

The opinion recognizes that AI has rapidly moved from an experimental technology to an everyday tool used to draft documents, summarize evidence, conduct research, analyze contracts, and communicate with clients. Rather than waiting for disciplinary issues to arise, the Alabama State Bar sought to explain how existing professional conduct rules govern these technologies.

Importantly, the opinion emphasizes that AI does not create new ethical duties. Instead, it “recontextualizes” existing duties—including competence, confidentiality, supervision, communication, candor, and reasonable fees—in light of AI-assisted legal practice.

Does the opinion prohibit lawyers from using AI?

No.

To the contrary, the opinion recognizes AI’s potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand access to legal services. Alabama acknowledges that AI is becoming an ordinary component of modern legal practice and that lawyers should understand both its benefits and its limitations.

The opinion also notes that as AI becomes more integrated into legal education and practice, technological competence increasingly includes understanding AI tools.

What are the most important takeaways for lawyers?

The opinion consistently returns to one central principle: Lawyers remain responsible for the final work product—even when AI assisted in creating it.

Among the practical expectations discussed are:

What guidance does the opinion provide regarding competence?

The opinion explains that competent representation now includes understanding how AI works sufficiently to appreciate both its capabilities and its risks.

Lawyers should understand issues such as:

  • hallucinated citations and factual errors;
  • incomplete or biased outputs;
  • limitations of predictive AI;
  • differences among AI platforms; and
  • circumstances requiring human review.

The opinion makes clear that blindly accepting AI-generated work is inconsistent with a lawyer’s duty of competence. Importantly, the opinion makes clear that:

“deploy[ing] an AI tool without basic due diligence on how that tool works and what it can get wrong has not satisfied Rule 1.1.”

In other words, failing to assess an AI vendor and its product could constitute a violation of the duty of competence.

What does the opinion say about confidentiality?

Confidentiality receives substantial attention. Before entering client information into an AI platform, lawyers should understand:

  • whether prompts are retained;
  • whether information may be used for model training;
  • who can access submitted information;
  • the vendor’s contractual commitments; and
  • the security controls protecting client data.

For many firms, this means AI can no longer be treated as simply another software application. Vendor due diligence, approved-use policies, and secure enterprise AI platforms are becoming increasingly important.

Can law firms have chatbots?

Yes, but. There is a lot to consider when developing and deploying a chatbot. For the Alabama Bar, it includes whether the chatbot “could cross into or facilitate the unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”)” and provides the following example:

Example. A law firm deploys a chatbot on its website that answers prospective clients’ legal questions in real-time. 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 UPL—and the lawyer who deployed it may be responsible under Rules 5.5, 5.3, and 8.4.

What does the opinion say about billing?

The opinion reminds lawyers that AI should not become a vehicle for unreasonable fees. If AI substantially reduces the time required to complete a task, lawyers must continue to comply with the rules governing reasonable fees. Lawyers remain responsible for ensuring clients are billed appropriately and transparently regardless of how the work was performed.

How does Alabama compare with other states?

Alabama’s opinion generally aligns with the growing national consensus reflected in ABA Formal Opinion 512, which likewise concludes that existing ethical rules adequately govern lawyers’ use of AI. Other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions while emphasizing different practical considerations.

Here are some examples:

  • Florida’s Opinion 24-1 similarly stresses competence, confidentiality, supervision, and verification of AI-generated work, while also adopting court rules addressing attorney responsibility for AI-generated filings.
  • North Carolina focuses extensively on client confidentiality, independent professional judgment, and supervisory responsibilities.
  • California’s practical guidance goes further into operational issues such as AI governance, vendor evaluation, and documenting internal controls for responsible AI use.
  • Georgia has published a practical AI toolkit emphasizing governance, education, and firm implementation rather than solely disciplinary analysis.

While terminology and emphasis differ, a clear national trend has emerged: state bars are not banning AI—they are requiring lawyers to use it competently, responsibly, and under appropriate professional supervision.

What should law firms do now?

The Alabama opinion should be viewed as more than an ethics opinion—it is a practical roadmap for AI governance. Law firms should consider:

  • inventorying approved AI tools;
  • developing written AI use policies;
  • implementing vendor due diligence procedures;
  • training attorneys and staff;
  • establishing review requirements for AI-generated work;
  • protecting confidential information through secure AI platforms;
  • documenting supervisory responsibilities; and
  • periodically reviewing AI governance as technology evolves.

For firms developing AI governance programs, Alabama Formal Opinion 2026-01 provides another authoritative reference confirming that successful AI adoption is no longer simply a technology issue—it is an issue of professional responsibility and sound law firm management.

Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP)…

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Trained as an employee benefits lawyer, focused on compliance, Joe also is a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group.

In short, his practice focuses on the matrix of laws governing the privacy, security, and management of data, as well as the impact and regulation of social media. He also counsels companies on compliance, fiduciary, taxation, and administrative matters with respect to employee benefit plans.

Privacy and cybersecurity experience – Joe counsels multinational, national and regional companies in all industries on the broad array of laws, regulations, best practices, and preventive safeguards. The following are examples of areas of focus in his practice:

  • Advising health care providers, business associates, and group health plan sponsors concerning HIPAA/HITECH compliance, including risk assessments, policies and procedures, incident response plan development, vendor assessment and management programs, and training.
  • Coached hundreds of companies through the investigation, remediation, notification, and overall response to data breaches of all kinds – PHI, PII, payment card, etc.
  • Helping organizations address questions about the application, implementation, and overall compliance with European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and, in particular, its implications in the U.S., together with preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act.
  • Working with organizations to develop and implement video, audio, and data-driven monitoring and surveillance programs. For instance, in the transportation and related industries, Joe has worked with numerous clients on fleet management programs involving the use of telematics, dash-cams, event data recorders (EDR), and related technologies. He also has advised many clients in the use of biometrics including with regard to consent, data security, and retention issues under BIPA and other laws.
  • Assisting clients with growing state data security mandates to safeguard personal information, including steering clients through detailed risk assessments and converting those assessments into practical “best practice” risk management solutions, including written information security programs (WISPs). Related work includes compliance advice concerning FTC Act, Regulation S-P, GLBA, and New York Reg. 500.
  • Advising clients about best practices for electronic communications, including in social media, as well as when communicating under a “bring your own device” (BYOD) or “company owned personally enabled device” (COPE) environment.
  • Conducting various levels of privacy and data security training for executives and employees
  • Supports organizations through mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations with regard to the handling of employee and customer data, and the safeguarding of that data during the transaction.
  • Representing organizations in matters involving inquiries into privacy and data security compliance before federal and state agencies including the HHS Office of Civil Rights, Federal Trade Commission, and various state Attorneys General.

Benefits counseling experience – Joe’s work in the benefits counseling area covers many areas of employee benefits law. Below are some examples of that work:

  • As part of the Firm’s Health Care Reform Team, he advises employers and plan sponsors regarding the establishment, administration and operation of fully insured and self-funded health and welfare plans to comply with ERISA, IRC, ACA/PPACA, HIPAA, COBRA, ADA, GINA, and other related laws.
  • Guiding clients through the selection of plan service providers, along with negotiating service agreements with vendors to address plan compliance and operations, while leveraging data security experience to ensure plan data is safeguarded.
  • Counsels plan sponsors on day-to-day compliance and administrative issues affecting plans.
  • Assists in the design and drafting of benefit plan documents, including severance and fringe benefit plans.
  • Advises plan sponsors concerning employee benefit plan operation, administration and correcting errors in operation.

Joe speaks and writes regularly on current employee benefits and data privacy and cybersecurity topics and his work has been published in leading business and legal journals and media outlets, such as The Washington Post, Inside Counsel, Bloomberg, The National Law Journal, Financial Times, Business Insurance, HR Magazine and NPR, as well as the ABA Journal, The American Lawyer, Law360, Bender’s Labor and Employment Bulletin, the Australian Privacy Law Bulletin and the Privacy, and Data Security Law Journal.

Joe served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Laura Denvir Stith on the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Read more about Joseph J. Lazzarotti
Show more Show less