Mississippi: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Mississippi firm: Ethics Opinion No. 267 (November 14, 2024) is the operative compliance framework. Its three mandatory disclosure triggers and the affirmative duty to verify AI output are the two highest-stakes obligations. The Greta Kemp Martin sanctions in the Northern District (over $20,000 plus mandatory CLE) demonstrate that enforcement risk is real even though neither federal district has a standing AI order on file.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for every AI-assisted filing, and staff training records covering Opinion 267.

Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar

Citation: Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar, issued November 14, 2024 by the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Primary source: landing page and PDF.

Status: Final formal advisory ethics opinion. It is advisory rather than binding precedent of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Still, the opinion is the authoritative interpretation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, issued by the body authorized to do so.

What it requires

• MRPC 1.1 (Competence): Lawyers must maintain a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools they use, or draw on others with that expertise. Competence expectations will shift as the technology matures.
• MRPC 1.1 and 3.3 (Verification): Lawyers have an affirmative duty to verify the accuracy and sufficiency of AI work product. The opinion explicitly acknowledges the hallucination problem: GAI may fabricate citations to nonexistent authorities. Verification is risk-calibrated; bulk contract review may be validated on a representative subset rather than line by line.
• MRPC 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must take reasonable measures and precautions to protect confidential information when using any GAI tool. Best practice is to avoid inputting identifiable client information where possible. Where the lawyer remains concerned about inadvertent disclosure, informed client consent is required before proceeding.
• MRPC 1.4 (Disclosure triggers): Routine GAI use does not require client disclosure. Three circumstances trigger mandatory disclosure and informed consent: (1) confidential client information will be provided to a third-party GAI provider; (2) the cost of the GAI tool will be charged to the client; or (3) disclosure is required by court rules. When triggered, the consent discussion must cover the proposed use, applications, risks and benefits, and privacy concerns.
• MRPC 1.5 (Billing): Lawyers must ensure billing does not duplicate charges or inflate hours when using GAI. If GAI cost is passed to the client, informed consent must be obtained and the billing arrangement memorialized in writing before billing commences.
• MRPC 5.1 and 5.3 (Supervision): Supervisory attorneys must ensure subordinate attorneys and non-lawyer staff comply with confidentiality and verification duties. Firms are explicitly instructed to train legal and non-legal staff and should consider written policies governing GAI use.

Notable gaps

Opinion 267 leaves several questions open. It does not address affirmative disclosure to tribunals absent a court standing order. It does not define minimum competency benchmarks. It does not address AI in client-facing applications (chatbots, intake portals), specify required vendor contractual terms, or impose an AI-specific CLE requirement.

What federal courts in Mississippi require for AI use in filings

Neither Mississippi federal district has issued a district-wide AI standing order. As of 2026-04-23, no individual judge AI standing orders for either district have been publicly reported. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

The Fifth Circuit covers both Mississippi federal districts. On 2024-06-12 it declined to adopt a proposed circuit-wide AI certification rule (proposed Rule 32.3 and Form 6). Its reasoning: existing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 obligations and the duty to check filings for accuracy are sufficient, and AI use does not excuse sanctionable conduct.

What Mississippi state courts require for AI use in filings

No state-court rule on attorney AI use has been identified yet. That covers the Mississippi Supreme Court, the court of appeals, and chancery and circuit court administrative orders, as of the verification date.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Mississippi?

Disability Rights Mississippi v. Palmer Home for Children (N.D. Miss. No. 1:24-cv-00099, 2025)

Before Judge Sharion Aycock. Litigation director Greta Kemp Martin submitted memoranda containing fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotations. The court found it “highly suspicious” that an AI tool had been used to generate the fabricated content. Sanction: over $20,000 in monetary sanctions, plus mandatory continuing legal education on AI hallucinations and AI risks in legal practice. The sanctions were imposed not because AI was used. They were imposed because the attorney failed to independently verify citations before filing, a duty that applies regardless of research method.

Judge Wingate AI incident (S.D. Miss., 2025-07-20)

The case is Mississippi Association of Educators et al. v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning et al., No. 3:25-cv-00417 (S.D. Miss.). The ACLU of Mississippi and Mississippi Center for Justice brought the suit as a challenge to HB 1193. U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate issued a temporary restraining order on 2025-07-20 after a law clerk used Perplexity AI as a foundational drafting assistant. The order named non-parties as plaintiffs and misquoted HB 1193’s statutory text (using phrases such as “race or sex stereotyping” and “race or sex scapegoating” that do not appear in the law).

In an October 21, 2025 letter to Senator Charles Grassley, Judge Wingate acknowledged the error and announced internal corrective measures. Two changes followed: a second law clerk now must independently review all draft opinions, orders, and memorandum decisions before submission. Cited cases printed from Westlaw must also be physically attached to the final draft before sign-off. No standing order for litigants resulted; corrective measures were internal chambers procedures only. This is a chambers-procedure incident, not an attorney-discipline matter.

What AI-related rules are pending in Mississippi?

SB 2046 (2026 Regular Session): Mississippians’ Right to Name, Likeness and Voice Act. Status as of 2026-04-25: passed the Senate 52-0 on 2026-02-11 (as amended), pending House consideration; not yet enacted. Primary source: LegiScan tracking. If enacted, the bill creates a private right of action, with injunctive relief and monetary damages for AI-generated misuse of name, likeness, or voice. Firms representing media, entertainment, or employment clients should track it; it does not directly regulate attorney AI use.

SB 2426 (Enacted 2025): AI Regulation Task Force. Primary source: bill text. Creates the AIR Task Force, operational through 2027-12-31, to study state AI applications and policy. AIR Task Force Report One filed 2026-01-13: PDF. Scope is general state governance, not attorney conduct.

Executive Order No. 1584 (January 2025). Primary source: Governor Reeves announcement. Directs the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services to inventory state agency AI use and develop policy recommendations. Does not govern attorneys or law firm operations.

How do malpractice carriers in Mississippi treat AI use?

No Mississippi-specific affiliated LPL carrier has published AI risk guidance comparable to FLMIC’s or LawPay/ALPS’s, and Opinion 267 itself contains no carrier-facing language. At least one non-standard program has adopted a manuscript endorsement excluding claims based on generative AI use. The Greta Kemp Martin sanctions order is the practical exposure benchmark: a stricken filing or sanctions referral tied to unverified AI citations creates a direct chain to malpractice exposure.

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

No dominant Mississippi carrier has published specific AI application items as of this entry’s date. Opinion 267 establishes the substantive standard of care: the affirmative verification duty under MRPC 1.1 and 3.3, the confidentiality “reasonable measures” duty under MRPC 1.6, and the three Rule 1.4 disclosure triggers. Firms should be ready to produce the written AI use policy, vendor due diligence records, training records, and per-matter verification notes described below. Firms should also review their malpractice policy and renewal questionnaire for AI-specific exclusions or sublimits before signing.

What documentation should a Mississippi firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Identify approved tools. Prohibit input of identifiable client information where possible. Specify verification requirements before submission to courts or clients. Address supervision of non-lawyer staff. Opinion 267 explicitly encourages written firm policies under MRPC 5.1 and 5.3.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log for every AI-assisted filing, recording who verified each authority and how. The Greta Kemp Martin sanction was imposed precisely because this step was skipped; the verification log is the documentary defense.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records showing all attorneys and non-legal staff have been trained on the firm’s AI policy, MRPC 1.6 confidentiality obligations, and the hallucination/verification duty. Opinion 267 explicitly directs firms to train legal and non-legal staff.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record for each GAI tool: whether the vendor uses client inputs to train models, opt-out status, data retention and deletion terms, and whether a data processing agreement exists. The record serves as primary evidence of “reasonable measures and precautions” under MRPC 1.6.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Billing agreement template for matters where AI costs are passed to the client. Execute before billing. Document the GAI tools to be used, how costs will be calculated, and the informed consent discussion required by Opinion 267 (proposed use, applications, risks and benefits, privacy concerns).

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

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

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes for matters with significant AI use, recording which tools were used, for what tasks, and how output was verified. Creates the record that the affirmative verification duty under MRPC 1.1 was fulfilled.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Informed consent documentation when AI use triggers any of Opinion 267’s three mandatory disclosure circumstances. Dated, signed, or email-acknowledged consent on file.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review of malpractice policy terms and renewal questionnaires for AI-specific exclusions or sublimits, and of judge-specific standing orders in both Mississippi federal districts at case assignment.

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