MO 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County): Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County), Local…
Court · Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit Court (Clay County)
Verified April 30, 2026
- Citation
- Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County), Local Rule 3.3.1: Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use
- Order date
- July 25, 2024
Summary
'Any person who submits a pleading or filing with the Court using any generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) tool to: (a) conduct the legal research referenced in the pleading; or (b) to draft a pleading or documents, must disclose to the Court that A.I. was used.'
What does the order require?
- 'Any person who submits a pleading or filing with the Court using any generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) tool to: (a) conduct the legal research referenced in the pleading; or (b) to draft a pleading or documents, must disclose to the Court that A.I. was used.'
- 'The A.I. disclosure shall identify the specific A.I. tool used and the manner in which it was used.'
- Reaffirms that 'Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03(c) continues to apply to all pleadings and filings, in that upon filed, documents and pleadings are deemed to be a representation and certification, by the person signing the filed document that the claim, defense, request, demand, objection, fact, contention or argument set forth in the document, is/are warranted by existing law, have evidentiary support, or, if so specifically identified, is/are likely to have evidentiary support, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.'
- 'Parties should not assume that mere reliance on an A.I. tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry.'
- Trigger reaches both AI-assisted legal research and AI-assisted drafting; either alone is sufficient to require disclosure.
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate
What the rule requires
The Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) adopted Local Rule 3.3.1 on July 25, 2024 as part of Rule 3.3 (“Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use”). The rule has two operative pieces: a disclosure mandate triggered by AI use in either research or drafting, and a reaffirmation that Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03(c)‘s reasonable-inquiry duty cannot be discharged by relying on AI.
- Disclosure trigger. Any person submitting a pleading or filing using a generative AI tool to “(a) conduct the legal research referenced in the pleading; or (b) to draft a pleading or documents.” Either branch is independently sufficient. AI-assisted research that informed the brief, even if no AI text appears in the brief itself, triggers the rule.
- Disclosure content. The disclosure must “identify the specific A.I. tool used and the manner in which it was used.” This is closer to the Missoula 4th District Rule 3(G) format than to a thin yes/no flag.
- Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 55.03(c) tie-in. Rule 3.3.1 reaffirms that the signing of a filing remains a representation that the claim, defense, fact, contention, or argument is warranted by existing law and has evidentiary support after reasonable inquiry.
- Express reasonable-inquiry warning. “Parties should not assume that mere reliance on an A.I. tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry.” This anticipates the argument that running a citation through an AI tool is itself the inquiry; the rule rejects that reading of Rule 55.03(c).
- Applies to “any person.” Attorneys, parties, and pro se litigants alike are subject to the rule.
- Sanctions framework. The rule does not enumerate specific sanctions; Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 55.03(d) supplies the standard sanctioning authority for Rule 55.03(c) violations.
Context
Local Rule 3.3.1 was adopted within months of two Missouri Court of Appeals sanctions decisions for AI-hallucinated citations: Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. Feb. 13, 2024) ($10,000 sanction; 22 of 24 cited cases were fictitious) and Stevens v. BJC Health Sys., No. ED112759 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. Mar. 18, 2025) (“abuse of the adversary system” language). The 7th Circuit rule and the appellate sanctions cases share a common premise: the verification duty under Rule 55.03(c) is not satisfied by AI-tool reliance.
The 7th Circuit’s rule is the only Missouri local AI rule whose verbatim text could be confirmed against the circuit’s own published rules document as of April 2026. The 17th, 20th, and 46th Missouri Judicial Circuits also maintain AI disclosure rules according to the Missouri Courts office’s local-rule index, but their verbatim text was not retrievable from the courts.mo.gov server via automated fetch as of this entry.
Practitioner workflow
For 7th Circuit (Clay County) matters, the disclosure block belongs in the filing itself, naming the specific generative AI tool and describing the manner of its use. Firms should treat the rule’s coverage of AI-assisted research as the operative threshold: even if an attorney drafts the brief by hand after running an AI-assisted research session, the rule is triggered and a disclosure is required. The reasonable-inquiry warning means that the AI tool itself cannot serve as the verification step; an independent check against Westlaw, Lexis, or the primary source is required.
Scope
Clay County only (Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit). For federal filings in the Eastern District of Missouri, see the E.D. Mo. AI accountability policy. For other Missouri circuits, check local rules at the circuit level before filing; AI disclosure rules exist in at least four Missouri circuits.
Primary source
7th Circuit Local Rules (PDF, see Rule 3.3.1 at internal page 9): http://www.circuit7.net/circuitcourt/Local-Court-Rules.pdf