Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11: lawyer's use of generative artificial intelligence
Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel · Missouri
last revised 2024-04-25last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
Ethics opinionIn forceCompetenceConfidentialityVerification dutySupervision
map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIBilling for AI workClient data in AI toolsDuty to verify AI outputTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workDisclosure of AI use in filings
Missouri's ethics counsel answered a firm asking how to build a generative-AI policy. The opinion walks through competence and training, platform assessment and confidentiality safeguards, obedience to court AI rules, professional independence, verification of AI output as nonlawyer work, supervision, fee reasonableness and candour toward the tribunal.
- Applies to
- lawyers, firms
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- Informal Opinion 2024-11 · 25 Apr 2024
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
- Official text
- mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/
What the document requires
- Lawyers must obtain education and training to determine which generative AI is appropriate for firm use (Rule 4-1.1 and Comment [6])
- Before use, assess the platform's terms and conditions, the security of information input, how that information is used, and what data sources produce responses (Rule 4-1.6)
- Make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorised disclosure or access, including by supervised persons (Rule 4-1.6(c), Comments [15] and [16])
- Rule 4-3.4(c) prohibits knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal's rules, which reaches court AI orders
- Lawyers must maintain professional independence and may not rely solely on AI-generated content (Rule 4-5.4)
- AI-assisted work must be verified for accuracy and content as with any nonlawyer assistance (Rule 4-5.3)
- Managers and supervisors must ensure conformity and provide appropriate training (Rule 4-5.1, 4-5.3)
- Consider how generative AI affects the reasonableness of fees (Rule 4-1.5(a))
- Generative AI is not always accurate, so competence and supervision are needed to avoid false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal (Rule 4-3.3)
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Informal Opinion 2024-11current | 2024-04-25 | Adopted by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11: lawyer's use of generative artificial intelligence" (Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel, Informal Opinion 2024-11, 2024-04-25), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11 (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System: Final Report · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines · RI Supreme Court
- Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
- 22 NYCRR Part 161 — Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology · NY Unified Court System
- In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (generative AI), SC2026-0673 · Florida Supreme Court