Michigan: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Michigan firm: The State Bar AI FAQs are the operative practice guidance but are explicitly non-binding; the binding cyber and vendor diligence standard is anchored in RI-381 (2020). Firms must verify every AI-generated citation before filing, document vendor due diligence under RI-381, and obtain client consent before inputting protected client information into any AI tool. The Seither sanctions order shows that Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 exposure for AI hallucinations is live in E.D. Mich., and Rule 11 sanctions are typically uninsured.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification checklist for every filing, and vendor due diligence records under RI-381.

State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs for Attorneys

Citation: State Bar of Michigan, Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center, AI FAQs for Attorneys (published 2024-11-18; fees section updated 2025-02-11). Primary source.

Status: Non-binding practice guidance. Not a formal numbered RI opinion. According to the FAQs themselves, they are “neither legal advice nor an ethics opinion.” Nor are they a substitute for an attorney’s obligation to adhere to the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. Future AI developments and feature updates fall outside their scope.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• Under MRPC 1.1, lawyers must understand AI capabilities and limitations, including hallucination risk.
• Lawyers must verify all AI-generated citations and text before filing. Under MRPC 1.3, they bear full professional responsibility for AI-generated work product.
• Under MRPC 1.6(c)(1), lawyers must obtain client consent before inputting protected client information into any AI tool. They must also evaluate the AI provider’s security measures, cross-referencing RI-381.
• When AI shortens a task, lawyers may bill only for actual time worked. A motion drafted in 15 minutes with AI may be billed at 15 minutes, not the manual-drafting equivalent.
• AI tool subscription costs are firm overhead and may not be passed to clients absent advance agreement. Per-use transactional AI costs may be billed as actual out-of-pocket expenses if disclosed in the engagement agreement.
• Firms may not bill clients for time spent learning to use AI tools.
• Under MRPC 5.1 and 5.3, managing and supervising lawyers must ensure AI use by all firm personnel complies with the MRPC.
• Submitting AI-hallucinated citations to a court violates MRPC 3.3.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• No blanket duty to disclose AI use to clients under MRPC 1.4 unless AI use implicates confidentiality, court order, or a material effect on the representation.

Notable gaps

The FAQs do not address AI-generated content labeling requirements in filings. They do not address multi-jurisdictional practice where another state’s rules are stricter. They explicitly disclaim coverage of future updates, modifications, or added features in AI tools.

Ethics Opinion RI-381 (cybersecurity foundation for AI vendor diligence)

Citation: State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, Ethics Opinion RI-381 (2020-02-21).

Status: Formal advisory ethics opinion. Directly cited in the AI FAQs as the operative standard for AI vendor due diligence. Lawyers must conduct appropriate due diligence on third-party vendors, including AI providers, to ensure data security controls reasonably protect against cyber risks. Cybersecurity policies appropriate to the practice are required. Security measures must be reassessed periodically to keep pace with evolving risks. Clients must be notified timely of material data breaches.

Ethics Opinion JI-155 (judicial AI competence)

Citation: State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, Ethics Opinion JI-155 (approved 2023-10-27; published 2023-11-08).

Status: Advisory ethics opinion for judges, not directly binding on attorneys. The opinion states that technology competence “is an ethical responsibility for all attorneys in Michigan.” It directs judges to assess potential algorithmic bias before relying on AI tools. Judges must document reasoning when using AI on the record, distinguish between AI informing a decision and AI deciding a matter, and recognize due process obligations when AI tools lack transparency. For attorneys, the opinion signals that AI-related objections may be available where AI-assisted tools are used in judicial decisions.

State Bar AI Workgroup Report (June 2025)

On 2025-06-11, the State Bar of Michigan Board of Commissioners’ AI Workgroup released Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI. Primary source PDF: Age of AI Report (June 2025). News release: SBM announcement. The report is a “living document,” not a binding ethics opinion. It reaffirms MRPC 1.1 as the operative standard. It addresses AI’s impact on unauthorized practice under MCL 600.916. It makes six institutional recommendations on member education, staff development, and standing committee oversight.

What federal courts in Michigan require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order is in force at any Michigan federal district. Proposed E.D. Mich. Local Rule 5.1(a)(4), proposed 2023-12-04 with comment period closed 2024-01-19, would have required disclosure of generative AI use and human verification of cited authority. It was not adopted. Proposed rule notice: E.D. Mich. notice (December 2023). Current rule (no AI provision): E.D. Mich. LR 5.1. Firms should check individual judges’ standing orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 independently requires accuracy certification regardless.

What Michigan state courts require for AI use in filings

Neither the Michigan Supreme Court nor any state circuit court has adopted a standing order or court rule requiring AI disclosure in filings. MCR 1.109(E)(5) and MCR 2.302(G)(4) supply the existing certification framework that AI-related conduct is measured against in state court.

Seither & Cherry Quad Cities v. Oakland Automation (E.D. Mich. 2024)

Citation: Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-11310, Consolidated Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions for Use of Artificial Intelligence (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2025) (Behm, J.) (ECF No. 81). Order on Justia. CourtListener docket.

Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted briefs containing AI-generated citations with real case names but fabricated quotations and parentheticals. Judge F. Kay Behm imposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions. Sanctions were warranted even absent bad faith, and they fell on counsel personally rather than the client. Plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to pay $1,485.00 directly to defense counsel. That figure matched what defense counsel declared as costs incurred responding to the false citations. Quoting Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 169 (2025), the order noted that generative AI programs “are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.” This is the first confirmed Michigan federal AI sanctions case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions are generally not covered by standard malpractice policies, so the financial exposure here is direct and personal.

What AI-related rules are pending in Michigan?

No formal RI opinion for practicing attorneys on AI is published; firms should monitor michbar.org/opinions/ethics for issuance. General-purpose Michigan AI bills (HB 4667/4668) address AI developer requirements, not attorney practice, and are not flagged as pending attorney-conduct legislation.

How do malpractice carriers in Michigan treat AI use?

No Michigan malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. Cyber-coverage counsel will measure firm conduct against RI-381’s binding vendor due diligence standard. Without documented evaluation of an AI tool’s data practices before use, a firm has a weakened cyber claim. Standard LPL policies may not explicitly cover AI-related sanctions or errors. Seither illustrates that Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions sit outside standard malpractice damages coverage.

What does my Michigan malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Michigan carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The carrier or broker will reference two substantive standards: the AI FAQs as operative practice guidance, and RI-381 as binding vendor diligence. Plan on producing four artifacts. A written AI use policy. Vendor due diligence records under RI-381. Citation verification logs for filings. Documentation of fee-billing protocols consistent with the February 2025 FAQs update. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Michigan firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Cover approved tools, what categories of client data may or may not be input, the verification workflow before any AI output is filed or sent to a client, and supervision responsibility under MRPC 5.1 and 5.3.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist requiring human verification of every citation in any filing, with initials of the verifying attorney before submission. Directly addresses Seither and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 regardless of E.D. Mich. rule non-adoption.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check at the opening of each federal matter, since no district-wide rule is in force and individual chambers may impose disclosure requirements.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool: data handling, privacy policy, terms of service, and security adequacy under RI-381’s standard. This is the evidence that defeats a negligence claim or carrier coverage defense.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI clause. Address whether the firm uses AI tools in representation. Set limits on inputting client information into non-enterprise AI tools. Require client consent for any AI use involving client data per MRPC 1.6(c)(1).
3. (Owner: firm administrator) CLE and training records showing attorneys and staff have current AI competence training under MRPC 1.1.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: billing partner) Fee billing protocol documentation. Specify that the firm bills actual time when AI tools are used, not estimated manual-drafting time. Treat AI subscription costs as overhead. Do not bill clients for time spent learning AI tools. Operationalizes the February 2025 FAQs fee guidance.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Annual professional liability policy review documenting review of the firm’s malpractice policy for AI-related exclusions, sublimits on AI-related claims, and whether “professional services” is defined to cover AI-assisted work.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.