In February, the Oregon State Bar released an ethics opinion on using autonomous artificial intelligence agents for law firm client intake.
The new opinion, Formal Opinion 2026-208, is available on the OSB website. The opinion begins by noting that law firms have long used technology—including earlier forms of “chatbots”—to gather information on their websites from prospective clients. The opinion then addresses the question of whether lawyers can use emerging AI agents that interact autonomously with prospective clients. The Oregon opinion concludes: “Yes, qualified.”
Some of the qualifiers apply to AI tools generally, such as understanding how they work and ensuring that confidential information is protected. That portion of the opinion dovetails with Oregon’s general opinion on using AI tools in law practice—OSB Formal Opinion 2025-205—that is similar in scope to its ABA (Formal Opinion 512) and WSBA (Advisory Opinion 202505) counterparts.
Other qualifiers, however, are specific to the interactive qualities and autonomous use of AI agents. The opinion counsels that lawyers need to understand how the agent reacts to particular prompts and monitor its activities so that it does not, for example, appear to create an attorney-client relationship, promise services that the law firm can’t deliver, or guarantee particular results. While these are some of the same issues the ABA plumbed recently in an ethics opinion on using human non-lawyers to assist with client intake (ABA Formal Opinion 506), the Oregon opinion underscores that the emerging use of autonomous technology agents in this process warrants close oversight by the lawyers involved. Analytically, the Oregon opinion casts the lawyer’s duty to supervise under RPC 5.3 governing non-lawyer assistance—but does so from the perspective of supervising the service provider rather than treating the AI agent itself as an “assistant” for purposes of the rule.
As a state bar ethics opinion, the OSB Formal 2026-208 understandably focuses on the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct rather than broader risk management issues such as contractual implications if the AI quotes a particular fee structure or statutory liability for consumer marketing misrepresentations. The opinion notes that the use of disclaimers may address some, but not necessarily all, of the collective risks. It concludes with a pointed reminder to lawyers: “Ultimately, Oregon lawyers are professionally responsible to supervise the accuracy of all work product, including that produced by a chatbot.”
