Mississippi

formal

Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar (Nov. 14, 2024)

Summary

Mississippi has Ethics Opinion No. 267 (November 14, 2024) covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, and client disclosure. The opinion identifies three specific circumstances triggering mandatory client disclosure and informed consent and imposes an affirmative duty to verify AI output accuracy. Mississippi has produced two high-profile AI enforcement incidents: Judge Wingate's law clerk used Perplexity AI to draft a defective court order (S.D. Miss., July 2025), and attorney Greta Kemp Martin was sanctioned over $20,000 for submitting AI-hallucinated citations (N.D. Miss., 2025).

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.4
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

At least one non-standard program has adopted a manuscript endorsement excluding claims based on generative AI use. Firms should review malpractice policy terms and renewal questionnaires for AI-specific exclusions or sublimits and document that AI output is validated before use in client matters.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Mississippi’s Ethics Opinion No. 267 (November 14, 2024) is the formal compliance framework. It imposes an affirmative duty to verify the accuracy of AI-generated work and acknowledges the “hallucination” problem as the predicate concern. Confidentiality requires “reasonable measures and precautions” before inputting client information into any GAI tool. Routine AI use does not require client disclosure, but disclosure and informed consent are mandatory in three circumstances: when confidential client information will be provided to a third-party GAI provider; when the GAI cost will be charged to the client; or when court rules require disclosure. Supervision under MRPC 5.1 and 5.3 requires firms to train legal and non-legal staff and consider written policies.

Two enforcement events frame the practical risk. In July 2025, Judge Henry T. Wingate (S.D. Miss.) issued a temporary restraining order in the HB 1193 challenge that named non-parties and cited a non-existent Cousins v. School Board of City of Norfolk after a law clerk used Perplexity AI; corrective measures were internal chambers procedures only. In Disability Rights Mississippi v. Palmer Home for Children (N.D. Miss., Judge Sharion Aycock, 2025), attorney Greta Kemp Martin was sanctioned over $20,000 plus mandatory CLE for submitting fabricated citations. No district-wide AI standing orders exist in either federal district, and the Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a circuit-wide AI certification rule in June 2024.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Mississippi firm: Opinion No. 267 is the operative compliance framework. Its three disclosure triggers and affirmative verification duty are the two highest-stakes obligations. The Greta Kemp Martin sanctions case demonstrates that enforcement risk is real even without a standing order on file.

Last verified: April 23, 2026