South Carolina (statewide judicial branch): South Carolina Supreme Court Interim Policy o…
Chief Justice John W. Kittredge · Supreme Court of South Carolina
Verified April 30, 2026
- Citation
- South Carolina Supreme Court Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Order date
- March 25, 2025
Summary
Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may only use Generative AI tools and systems in the performance of their Judicial Branch duties that are approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration.
What does the order require?
- Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may only use Generative AI tools and systems in the performance of their Judicial Branch duties that are approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration.
- Generative AI tools may only be accessed using approved devices; employees may not circumvent this rule by using Generative AI on personal devices or systems.
- Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may not use Generative AI to draft memoranda, orders, opinions, or other documents without direct human oversight and approval. Content from Generative AI may not be used verbatim or be solely relied on in making final decisions.
- Neither AI nor Generative AI tools may be used to process or analyze confidential court records or privileged information unless expressly authorized.
- Lawyers and litigants are reminded they are responsible to ensure the accuracy of all work product and must use caution when relying on any output of Generative AI; lawyers must ensure use of Generative AI does not compromise client confidentiality or violate the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR.
Practice areas: judicial branch policy
What the policy requires
On March 25, 2025, Chief Justice John W. Kittredge issued the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Appellate Case No. 2025-000043). The policy is principally directed at the judicial branch itself, not at the practicing bar, but it includes a section specifically addressing lawyers and litigants.
- Approved tools and devices only. Judicial Branch Officers and Employees (justices, judges, attorneys, law clerks, administrative assistants, interns, externs, paralegals, IT professionals, and others) may only use Generative AI tools approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration, and only on approved devices. Use on personal devices is prohibited.
- No autonomous drafting. Generative AI may not be used to draft memoranda, orders, opinions, or other documents without direct human oversight and approval. Generated content “may not be used verbatim; be assumed to be truthful, reliable, or accurate; be treated as the sole source of reference; or be solely relied on in making final decisions.”
- Confidentiality. Generative AI may not process or analyze confidential court records or privileged information unless expressly authorized and in compliance with the Judicial Branch Acceptable Use Policy and Information Security Governing Policy.
- Software code. Use of Generative AI to create or modify software code is permitted only after identification and mitigation of business and security risks, and all AI-generated code must be documented.
- Training and corrective action. The Branch will develop training programs, and Judicial Officers and Employees are subject to corrective action, including discipline, for violations.
What the policy means for practicing lawyers
Section (d) of the policy expressly states that the Interim Policy “does not specifically address the use of Generative AI by lawyers and litigants,” but reminds them of two duties:
- Lawyers and litigants “are responsible to ensure the accuracy of all work product and must use caution when relying on any output of Generative AI.”
- Lawyers must ensure that the use of Generative AI does not compromise client confidentiality or otherwise violate the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR.
The policy defines Generative AI broadly to include ChatGPT, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Grok, Gemini, Meta Chat, and “Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research and/or CoCounsel.”
Practitioner workflow
For South Carolina attorneys, the policy itself imposes no disclosure or certification obligation in court filings. The workflow signal is indirect: the Supreme Court has formalized that even within the judicial branch, generative AI output is not assumed accurate and must be verified by a human. Practitioners should expect that South Carolina judges have internalized this skepticism and apply it to attorney filings under Rule 407 (Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 11-equivalent verification duties.
Scope
Statewide. Binds all officers and employees of the South Carolina Judicial Branch. Practitioner-facing language is hortatory: it reminds rather than commands.
Duration
“This Interim Policy shall remain in effect until further Order of the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court.”
Primary source
Order PDF: https://www.sccourts.org/media/courtOrders/PDFs/2025-03-25-01.pdf
Court news release: https://www.sccourts.org/about/court-news/2025-08-15/interim-policy-on-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence/