Missouri: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Missouri firm: Missouri’s AI guidance comes from two nonbinding informal opinions of the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel. Informal Opinion 2024-11 covers general AI use; Informal Opinion 2026-09 (AI deposition software) states that “A lawyer must obtain informed consent from the client to the use of the AI software before inputting confidential client information into the AI software.” The Missouri Court of Appeals has repeatedly addressed fabricated citations, awarding damages or sanctions in Kruse, Boatner, and Schnell. The 7th and 46th Judicial Circuits require AI disclosure in filings, and Judge Divine requires an AI certification in federal cases before Judge Divine, so checking the specific court’s rules before filing is the most actionable step.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification protocol, a client consent step before confidential information goes into an AI tool, and a court-by-court AI rule check before each filing.

Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11

Citation: Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (adopted April 25, 2024), issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel. Indexed at the informal opinions search.

Status: Informal advisory opinion, nonbinding. Under the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel’s own explanation, the Legal Ethics Counsel “provides informal advisory opinions to Missouri lawyers” under Rules 5.07(b) and 5.30(c), and an informal opinion “is nonbinding and is given for the guidance of the lawyer asking the question.” Formal opinions, which “are binding in disciplinary proceedings,” come from the Advisory Committee under Rule 5.30(a); the Committee’s formal opinions index contains none on AI. The opinion describes itself as “initial guidance” that “is not intended to be an exclusive list of ethical considerations.”

What it says

• Competence (Rule 4-1.1). The lawyer “should get education and training to ascertain what types of generative AI are and are not appropriate for use,” and “must understand the risks and benefits of implementing use of these technologies.”
• Confidentiality (Rule 4-1.6). The lawyer should carefully assess any AI platform, considering its terms and conditions, the security of information input, how that information is used, and the platform’s data sources.
• Verification (Rule 4-5.3). For AI-generated work product, “there is a professional responsibility to verify the accuracy and content of the product in accordance with Rule 4-5.3,” because generative AI tools are not always accurate.
• Candor (Rule 4-3.3). A lawyer must not submit false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal.
• Court orders (Rule 4-3.4(c)). Where court orders or rules address AI, the lawyer “should be mindful of the obligation” not to knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.
• Independence (Rule 4-5.4). The lawyer should not rely solely on content created by a generative AI platform.
• Supervision (Rules 4-5.1, 4-5.3). Firms should adopt AI policies, and appropriate training should be provided to lawyers and nonlawyers.

Missouri Informal Opinion 2026-09 (AI deposition software)

Citation: Missouri Informal Opinion 2026-09 (adopted August 3, 2026), issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel on the use of AI software in depositions, including software with real-time listening capabilities. Rules: 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-1.5, 4-1.6, 4-3.4, 4-5.1, 4-5.3, 4-5.4. Nonbinding, like 2024-11.

What 2026-09 says

• Competence (Rule 4-1.1). A lawyer must have “a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of AI software, including the risks posed by the use of the software,” and must independently verify the software’s output.
• Consent (Rules 4-1.6, 4-1.4). “A lawyer must obtain informed consent from the client to the use of the AI software before inputting confidential client information into the AI software,” and “should discuss the use of the AI software with the client as part of obtaining informed consent.”
• Fees (Rule 4-1.5). The lawyer should communicate to the client, preferably in writing, any charge for the software, and hourly fees “must be reasonable, i.e., the amount of time charged must reflect the efficiencies provided by the use of the software.”
• Supervision (Rules 4-5.1, 4-5.3). Firms need “clear policies regarding the permissible use of Software” and training, and vendor diligence on credentials, security, and confidentiality agreements.
• Disclosure to others. “The Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically address whether a lawyer must advise the client, the court, opposing counsel, or the deponent of the use of AI software.” Notice is required where local rules, court orders, discovery rules, or privacy laws require it, and a lawyer should not misrepresent the use of AI software.

What federal courts in Missouri require for AI use in filings

The Eastern District of Missouri’s Artificial Intelligence notice (court page) states that by presenting any pleading, written motion, or other paper, “self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence,” citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). It adds no disclosure or certification requirement. From at least August 2023 to August 2024, the court’s self-represented litigants page carried a stricter statement: “No portion of any pleading, written motion, or other paper may be drafted by any form of generative artificial intelligence.”

Individual judges go further. Judge Joshua M. Divine (requirements), who sits in both the Eastern and Western Districts, requires that “All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must file a certificate on the docket, together with their notice of appearance,” attesting either that no filing will be drafted by generative AI or that any AI-drafted language “will be fully checked for accuracy by a human being, using print reporters or traditional legal databases.” Other Eastern District judges address AI in their posted requirements: Judge Cristian M. Stevens warns that a filing that “hallucinates legal citations or propositions” or is not properly reviewed “will result in the imposition of sanctions”; Judge Maria A. Lanahan requires that AI-drafted language be “fully checked for accuracy by a human being”; Senior Judge John A. Ross requires filers to “meticulously review and independently verify” GenAI-assisted documents and tells parties to avoid disclosing confidential litigation material “to any GenAI tool or platform that may retain that information, use the information in training its model, or disclose it to other users”; and Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker repeats the court notice. The Western District has no district-wide AI statement, so the assigned judge’s requirements are worth checking in each case.

What Missouri state courts require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, no Supreme Court of Missouri rule or order requiring AI disclosure was located. Several judicial circuits have their own rules:

• 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County). Local Rule 3.3.1 (adopted July 25, 2024), in the circuit’s current local rules (January 20, 2026 edition), requires any person who uses a generative AI tool to conduct the legal research referenced in a filing, or to draft it, to disclose that AI was used, identify the tool, and describe how it was used. It reminds parties that Rule 55.03(c) still applies and that “[p]arties should not assume that mere reliance on an A.I. tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry.”
• 46th Judicial Circuit (Taney County). The circuit’s local rules (tracker entry), effective December 23, 2025, include the same disclosure rule as Rule 3.3, and Rule 3.4 requires any transcript to indicate whether speech-to-text or automated speech recognition programs, “i.e., AI,” were used in its preparation.
• 17th and 20th Judicial Circuits. Rules on AI disclosure are reported (17th Circuit Rule 3.3; 20th Circuit Local Rule 17), but their text could not be confirmed from the circuits’ own publications for this entry; confirm directly before filing.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Missouri?

Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2024)

In Kruse v. Karlen, No. ED111172 (decided February 13, 2024), the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in which only two of the twenty-four case citations in the appellant’s brief were genuine. It awarded the respondent $10,000 in damages under Rule 84.19 for a frivolous appeal and warned that the court “will not permit fraud on this Court in violation of our rules.”

Stevens v. BJC Health Sys., No. ED112759 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. Mar. 18, 2025)

In Stevens v. BJC, the court found six cited cases it could not locate, which “suggests the use of artificial intelligence,” and warned that “using artificial intelligence to draft a legal document may lead to sanctions if the user fails to perform a critical review of the end-product to ensure that fictitious legal authorities or citations do not appear in filings with this Court or any other court.” It imposed no sanction and affirmed the decision below on the merits.

Boatner v. Hickerson and State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson (2026)

In Boatner v. Hickerson (June 2, 2026), the Eastern District awarded $10,000 in damages under Rule 84.19 for a frivolous appeal. In State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson (September 8, 2026), it imposed $1,750 under Rule 55.03(c), payable by relator’s counsel. In federal court, the Eastern District imposed a $1,000 sanction in Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual (2025).

What AI-related rules are pending in Missouri?

No AI rule proposal is pending before the Supreme Court of Missouri that could be located, and the 2026 regular legislative session ended with no enacted bill on attorney AI use or court filings. HB 1769 (AI non-sentience and responsibility), merged into HCS HBs 1746 & 1769, was last reported “Do Pass” by a House committee on March 30, 2026. SB 1012 (AI provisions) passed the Senate on May 6, 2026, and a House committee voted it “Do Not Pass” on May 12, 2026. SB 1117 (digital depictions) saw no action after February 4, 2026.

How do malpractice carriers in Missouri treat AI use?

The Bar Plan states that it has been “the sole malpractice insurer endorsed by The Missouri Bar” since 1985. It has published no AI-specific underwriting position in the materials reviewed for this entry, and no filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located. The verification, supervision, and consent points in Informal Opinions 2024-11 and 2026-09 describe the practices a firm would want to be able to document if AI-related work product were ever at issue in a claim.

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

Missouri LPL carriers have not published Missouri-specific AI application items as of 2026-09-30. Firms that want to be ready for questions may wish to have on hand a written AI policy, platform security review documentation for each approved tool, client consent records for confidential inputs, a citation verification protocol, training records, and matter-level AI use logs. Firms practicing in courts with AI rules may also want a record of their court-by-court disclosure workflow.

What documentation should a Missouri firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, permitted uses, verification before submission, and the responsible attorney; updated annually or when material new tools are adopted. Both informal opinions describe firm policies and training under Rules 4-5.1 and 4-5.3.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification protocol requiring every legal citation to be verified against a primary source before filing, which addresses the pattern in Kruse, Boatner, and Schnell.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-by-court AI rule check tracking whether each court the firm files in has an AI rule (the 7th and 46th Circuits, the reported 17th and 20th Circuit rules, and judges such as Judge Divine in federal court), with completed disclosures or certifications retained.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Platform security review documentation for each approved AI tool: its terms of service, data security practices, and data retention or deletion policies, with the version reviewed and the date.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Client consent and fee communication. A record of informed client consent before confidential information is input into an AI tool, and written communication of any AI-related charges, as Informal Opinion 2026-09 describes.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Staff AI training records showing lawyers and nonlawyer staff received training on AI risks and verification.

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) Matter-level AI use log for any matter where AI was used in drafting, research, depositions, or analysis: what tool was used, for what purpose, and who performed the verification review.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Annual professional liability insurance review confirming how the firm’s policy treats AI-assisted work product and whether any AI-specific exclusion has been added by endorsement.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for new Office of Legal Ethics Counsel opinions, circuit court AI rules, and Missouri appellate decisions.

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