What happens when California and Florida AI legal guidelines take completely different approaches to the same challenge? If you’re a lawyer, in-house counsel, or legal ops leader, the answer could shape how you use AI in your daily work—and how quickly you can embrace it.
Kassi Burns unpacks what the released California and Florida AI legal guidelines mean for practicing lawyers, legal departments, and the future of access to justice.
Watch the full conversation with Kassi Burns here:
Balancing Innovation and Competitiveness
California’s draft AI guidelines show a willingness to innovate while safeguarding ethics and confidentiality. Kassi points out that the framework welcomes experimentation—so long as lawyers follow clear rules for use cases, access protocols, and validation. Public comment is encouraged, giving both lawyers and technologists a say in shaping the final standards.
This is more than bureaucracy—it’s an invitation to try new tools under a structured safety net. For tech-curious lawyers, California’s approach could mean faster adoption without crossing ethical lines.
Florida AI Legal Guidelines: Why Caution Comes First
Florida’s proposed rules take a different tone—more careful, even cautious. Many Florida lawyers work in smaller practices without the resources of big firms, so risk management is front and center. Olga compares it to driving into the sun—you slow down because you can’t afford to miss what’s in your blind spot.
The upside? Fewer costly mistakes. The trade-off? Innovation might take longer. Still, for many lawyers, that’s a fair exchange if it means protecting clients and reputations.
Where California and Florida AI Legal Guidelines Overlap
Kassi highlights that despite their differences, both states have one important thing in common: they’ve opened their guidelines for public comment. Kassi sees this as a chance for collaboration and mutual learning between jurisdictions.
Early adopters like California and Florida could help shape national best practices—reducing the risk of a messy, state-by-state patchwork of AI rules. And if other states follow, the U.S. could move toward consistent, reliable standards for AI in legal practice.
Practical Lessons for Lawyers from AI Legal Guidelines
Kassi suggests starting with small, low-risk uses of AI—especially on non-billable tasks like scheduling, formatting documents, or summarizing notes. These are areas where confidentiality risks are minimal, but the time savings can be significant.
Olga adds that lawyers should tap into existing resources rather than reinvent the wheel. Hands-on experimentation in marketing, administrative work, or internal research can help lawyers get comfortable with AI before using it in high-stakes client matters.
The key is to treat AI adoption like any other professional skill: start small, learn as you go, and share successes (and lessons learned) with peers.
The Big Takeaway
California and Florida may have different philosophies, but their AI legal guidelines are shaping the national conversation. Whether you lean toward California’s embrace of innovation or Florida’s insistence on caution, the key is the same: informed, intentional, and ethical adoption of AI in legal practice.
Watch the full conversation here: Notes to My (Legal) Self: Season 6, Episode 17 (ft.Kassi Burns)
Join the Conversation
At Notes to My (Legal) Self®, we help in-house legal professionals sharpen their skills, expand their leadership toolkit, and stay ahead of industry shifts. From governance strategy to legal operations and emerging tech, we’re here to help you navigate complex challenges with clarity, including those posed by differing AI legal guidelines like in California and Florida.
What’s your biggest governance “aha” moment? Share your story with us.
