Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / United States (state)

Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267: lawyers' use of generative artificial intelligence

The Mississippi Bar, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility · Mississippi

last revised 2024-11-14last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

Ethics opinionIn forceCompetenceVerification dutyConfidentialityClient consentSupervision

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.

Mississippi's generative-AI ethics opinion is unusually specific about client disclosure. Routine AI use needs no disclosure, but three circumstances trigger mandatory disclosure and informed consent, and the opinion imposes an affirmative, risk-calibrated verification duty plus written agreement before AI costs are billed.

Applies to
lawyers, firms
Effective
See version history
Current version
Opinion No. 267 · 14 Nov 2024
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/

What the document requires

  • Lawyers must maintain a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks of the generative AI tools they use, or draw on others with that expertise (MRPC 1.1)
  • Affirmative duty to verify the accuracy and sufficiency of AI work product, calibrated to risk; bulk contract review may be validated on a representative subset (MRPC 1.1, 3.3)
  • Reasonable measures to protect confidential information; avoid inputting identifiable client information where possible; informed consent required where inadvertent disclosure remains a concern (MRPC 1.6)
  • Three mandatory client disclosure and informed consent triggers (MRPC 1.4): confidential client information will be provided to a third-party AI provider; the AI tool's cost will be charged to the client; or disclosure is required by court rules
  • Billing must not duplicate charges or inflate hours; if AI cost is passed to the client, informed consent and a written billing arrangement are required before billing begins (MRPC 1.5)
  • Supervisory attorneys must ensure subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer staff comply with confidentiality and verification duties, with training and written policies (MRPC 5.1, 5.3)
  • Does not address affirmative disclosure to tribunals absent a court standing order

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Opinion No. 267current2024-11-14Issued by the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibilityofficial

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267: lawyers' use of generative artificial intelligence" (The Mississippi Bar, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Opinion No. 267, 2024-11-14), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267 (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in United States (state)