Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
State Bar of Michigan: AI FAQs for Attorneys
State Bar of Michigan, Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center · Michigan
last revised 2025-02-11last verified 2026-09-042 versionscountry page →
country page →GuidanceIn forceVerification dutyConfidentialityClient consentSupervisionCompetence
map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIBilling for AI workClient data in AI toolsDuty to verify AI outputTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workClient consent and transparency
Unverified: we have not yet opened the official document at the linked address. The record is listed for completeness and excluded from search indexes until confirmed.
Michigan's operative AI guidance is a set of State Bar FAQs rather than a formal RI opinion. They impose verification, client-consent, vendor-security, billing and supervision duties under the MRPC, and adopt Ethics Opinion RI-381 as the vendor due-diligence standard for AI providers.
- Applies to
- lawyers, firms
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- Fees section update · 11 Feb 2025
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
- Official text
- www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs
What the document requires
- Lawyers must understand AI capabilities and limitations including hallucination risk (MRPC 1.1) and must verify all AI-generated citations and text before filing (MRPC 1.3)
- Client consent is required before inputting protected client information into any AI tool, and the provider's security measures must be evaluated per Ethics Opinion RI-381 (MRPC 1.6(c)(1))
- Where AI shortens a task, a lawyer may bill only the actual time worked
- AI subscription costs are firm overhead and may not be passed to clients absent advance agreement; per-use transactional AI costs may be billed as out-of-pocket expenses if disclosed in the engagement agreement
- A firm may not bill clients for time spent learning to use AI tools
- Managing and supervising lawyers must ensure firm personnel comply with the MRPC when using AI (MRPC 5.1, 5.3)
- Submitting AI-hallucinated citations to a court violates MRPC 3.3
- No blanket duty to disclose AI use to clients unless it implicates confidentiality, a court order, or materially affects the representation
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fees section updatecurrent | 2025-02-11 | Fees section updated | official |
| Original | 2024-11-18 | Initial publication | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "State Bar of Michigan: AI FAQs for Attorneys" (State Bar of Michigan, Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center, Fees section update, 2025-02-11), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- California SB 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026): generative AI duties for attorneys and arbitrators · California Legislature
- Standing Order – Jury Trials · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Cleary)
- Standing Order for Courtroom 2309 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Golden)
- Standing Order, General Chancery Calendar 9 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division (Judge Horan)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Seaton)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Sullivan)