None of these documents requires a firm to label marketing copy as AI-assisted. All of them put responsibility squarely on the lawyer. For the full state-by-state list, see our answer on which states have AI ethics opinions.
Colorado: technology is no excuse
On January 8, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted Rule Change 2026(02), effective immediately. A new paragraph [20A] in the Scope section says a lawyer who uses technology, directly or indirectly, may be disciplined for a resulting rule violation, and a new comment [9] to Rule 1.1 lists Rule 7.1 among the rules AI use can touch. Relying on a tool does not reduce the lawyer's independent judgment. Our Colorado guide puts that next to the state's advertising rules.
Rhode Island: the one that names advertising
In June 2026 the Rhode Island Supreme Court amended Comment [6] to Rule 1.1 and adopted Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI by Rhode Island Lawyers. The order describes them as advisory, without the force of law. Even so, they go further on marketing than most: a lawyer using AI for advertising remains responsible for its content and should review it against Rules 7.1 through 7.5 before it runs. They also say website chatbots carry Rule 1.18 duties to prospective clients.
North Dakota: a court notice, not an ethics opinion
The North Dakota Court System's Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, dated June 1, 2026, treats AI as a tool and holds filers fully responsible for what they submit, fabricated citations included. It says disclosure is not required simply because AI was used. It covers court filings, not marketing.
Alabama: best practices, and a warning about wording
The Alabama State Bar's Formal Opinion 2026-01, "Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules," covers competence, verification, confidentiality, written policies with attorney review, and billing only for time actually spent. It does not discuss the advertising rules, but it does warn against marketing an AI tool as "the lawyer" and walks through a website chatbot scenario that raises unauthorized practice concerns.
What to do with your pages
- Keep a named reviewerWhoever drafts a page, a licensed attorney at the firm approves it before it goes live.
- Check chatbotsIf your site runs one, treat its conversations as contact with prospective clients.
- Do not let a tool speak as the lawyerCopy and chat scripts should make clear who is giving advice.
That review step is built into every engagement on our law firm content work.