Montana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Montana firm: No bar opinion or statewide court rule governs AI use in Montana practice, so the Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly, and Montana’s Preamble already ties competence to “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Attorneys filing in the 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties), the 13th (Yellowstone County), or the 15th (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties) must disclose AI use and certify their filings under each district’s rule. In 2026 a Missoula district judge rejected a defense lawyer’s filings in three criminal cases as consistent with undisclosed generative AI use, and the Montana Supreme Court described the rejections as sanctions of a kind Local Rule 3(G) permits.

Firms may wish to start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a disclosure workflow for filings in the 4th, 13th, and 15th Districts.

What governs by default

As of 2026-09-30, the State Bar of Montana’s ethics opinions index lists no opinion on AI; its newest listed opinion is No. 140519 (2014). Its published AI material consists of articles in its news section, including a 2023 article by legal technology consultants and a President’s Message on AI. Neither is an ethics committee product, and neither is binding or advisory authority.

The Montana Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly. Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.5 (fees), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 5.1 and 5.3 (supervisory responsibility) carry their ordinary meaning when a Montana firm uses AI. Rule 3.3 prohibits false statements of law to a tribunal, which is why firms may wish to verify every AI-assisted citation before filing, whether or not a local rule demands disclosure.

The Montana Supreme Court adopted its Rules of Professional Conduct without the ABA comments, but the Preamble adopted by its October 29, 2019 order (effective January 1, 2020) states: “Competence implies an obligation to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is persuasive authority only and has not been adopted by the State Bar of Montana.

What federal courts in Montana require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has no court-wide AI standing order or local rule: its standing-orders list and its Local Rules (effective December 1, 2025) contain no AI provision, and the Bankruptcy Court’s standing orders, administrative orders, and local rules (effective December 1, 2025) contain none either. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and, in bankruptcy, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 supply the operative accuracy framework, and D. Mont. L.R. 11.1 governs signatures in electronic filings. Judge Molloy adds a condition for pro hac vice counsel.

Judge Donald W. Molloy: Judge Molloy’s pro hac vice admission orders require out-of-state counsel to do their own work and prohibit their use of generative AI drafting programs. The earliest order read, Belenzon v. Paws Up Ranch, LLC, No. CV 23-69-M-DWM, ECF 8 (D. Mont. June 22, 2023), states: “Use of artificial intelligence automated drafting programs, such as Chat GPT, is prohibited.” The condition appears in his pro hac vice orders through at least September 2025, for example Golden Bear Insurance Co. v. SBD Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00073, ECF 14 (D. Mont. Aug. 19, 2025): “Use of generative AI drafting programs, such as Chat GPT, is prohibited.” The condition binds the admitted pro hac vice counsel, not Montana counsel of record, and a magistrate judge’s pro hac vice order read for comparison, in Ailes v. Klemann, No. CV 26-14-M-KLD, ECF 4 (D. Mont. Jan. 20, 2026), does not include it. See the tracker entry.

What Montana state courts require for AI use in filings

The Montana Supreme Court’s court rules page, which lists its rule-making matters, shows no AI rule in force; the only AI rule proposal is proposed Rule of Evidence 901(c), described below. As posted on the Judicial Branch’s district rules page in September 2026, nineteen of Montana’s 22 judicial districts have no AI-specific local rule. Three districts have adopted binding rules within their territory.

4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties), Local Rule 3(G):

• Any party using generative AI to prepare a pleading or filed document must disclose the use, identify the specific tool, describe how the tool was used, and certify accuracy.
• The accuracy certification covers any AI-drafted or AI-assisted portion, “including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.”
• A filing without this certification is presumed to have been prepared without AI assistance.
• A violation “may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11, including the possibility of dismissal of the responsible party’s case, document, or pleading without prejudice.”

Primary source: 4th District local rules. See the tracker entry for 4th District Rule 3(G).

13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County, Billings), Local Rule 35: If an attorney or self-represented party has used generative AI to prepare a filed document, they “MUST, identify the type of AI used and CERTIFY every citation to the law or record in the filing has been verified as accurate.” The rule was adopted February 28, 2025 and took effect April 1, 2025 (court-hosted rules as archived December 3, 2025, signed by Chief Judge Donald Harris), and the current Yellowstone County local rules, effective January 1, 2026, carry it forward. Primary source: Yellowstone County local rules. See the tracker entry for 13th District Rule 35.

15th Judicial District (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties), Rule 3(N): In the district’s rules last updated July 1, 2026, any document “prepared, in whole or in part with the assistance of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) service or chatbot, such as ChatGPT,” must “clearly disclose” that fact to the court in the document. The filer must also certify, under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11, “that ‘the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.’” Primary source: 15th District rules.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Montana?

2026 Missoula County criminal filings (4th Judicial District). In State v. Stroup, No. DC-24-575, the defense filed a motion to dismiss on February 9, 2026 that, according to the defendant’s allegations as the Montana Supreme Court recounted them, inadvertently included “appended research and work-product materials”; ten days later counsel filed a “corrected” motion “with full Local Rule 3(g) certification.”

• Trial court. According to the same allegations, District Judge John W. Larson vacated the trial date and, on March 13, 2026, rejected all defense filings in Stroup with leave to cure, taking judicial notice that defense counsel had allegedly filed documents in two other cases before him that did not properly disclose AI use; the order of rejection is said to describe “the inept use of GenAI but also an unacceptable level of practice before this Court.” In one of those cases, State v. Bolich, No. DC-25-473, the Supreme Court’s own order describes Judge Larson rejecting defense filings based on counsel’s conduct in another proceeding.
• Supreme Court. The Montana Supreme Court denied motions to disqualify Judge Larson (Bolich, Mar. 27, 2026; Stroup, amended order, June 9, 2026), stating that “[t]he fact that Judge Larson chose to impose sanctions of a kind permitted under Local Rule 3(G) is insufficient to demonstrate personal bias or prejudice.”

The episode shows how a single disputed filing can lead to rejected filings, a vacated trial date, and scrutiny of the same lawyer’s filings in unrelated matters.

What AI-related rules are pending in Montana?

No State Bar of Montana AI task force, draft opinion, or rulemaking process was found in the bar’s published material as of 2026-09-30. The Montana Supreme Court has a pending AI evidence rule. On May 18, 2026 it published for comment proposed amendments to the Montana Rules of Evidence, including a new Rule 901(c) addressing “potentially fabricated evidence created by generative artificial intelligence.” After the Court published an additional Commission comment on the rule in July, comments closed August 18, 2026. On September 21, 2026 the Commission recommended replacing “a jury reasonably could find” with “a reasonable factfinder could find” if the Court adopts the rule, which it had not done as of September 30, 2026 (docket). See the regulatory timeline.

The 2025 Legislature enacted several AI-related laws, none of which governs attorney practice or court filings:

• SB 212 (Right to Compute Act, signed April 16, 2025).
• HB 178 (signed May 5, 2025) limits state and local government use of AI, including for “surveillance of public spaces” with exceptions, and requires disclosure and human review of certain government AI uses.
• SB 25 (deepfakes in election communications).
• SB 413 (disclosure of explicit synthetic media).
• HB 513 (rights in name, voice, and visual likeness).
• HB 514 (digitally fabricated media).

HJ 4 requested an interim study of AI, which the Legislative Council assigned to the Energy and Technology Interim Committee for the 2025-2026 interim (work plan).

How do malpractice carriers in Montana treat AI use?

The State Bar of Montana’s partners page describes ALPS as “Founded in Missoula, Montana, by lawyers in 1988” and “now the nation’s largest direct writer of lawyers’ malpractice insurance.” ALPS is not exclusive in Montana; other carriers also write attorney professional liability. The State Bar’s guidance on hiring an attorney states that “Lawyers in Montana are not required to maintain malpractice insurance, however, Lawyer Referral Service attorneys do agree to carry malpractice insurance.”

ALPS’s August 21, 2025 guidance states that LPL policies “typically do not exclude coverage for claims alleging negligence arising as a result of the use of generative AI.” It adds that allowing AI to make critical legal judgments without attorney oversight “could be viewed as the unauthorized practice of law, and LPL policies typically exclude coverage for the unauthorized practice of law.” As of 2026-09-30, no Montana-specific AI endorsement, exclusion, or premium surcharge was found in the carrier materials reviewed for this entry.

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

ALPS’s July 2024 application form (LF PLA 07-24) contains no AI-specific question. At least one national LPL application, AmTrust’s LPLPRO-APP-01 (05/23), lists the item “Allow the use of Artificial Intelligence software to draft documents. If checked, please attach description.” WTW’s 2026 outlook reports underwriter concern with “tight controls over AI selection and use to ensure accuracy.” Firms may wish to keep a written AI use policy, vendor due diligence records, citation-verification documentation, and training records. Firms practicing in the 4th, 13th, or 15th Judicial Districts may also wish to be able to show their disclosure workflow for those venues.

What documentation should a Montana firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3). Enumerate approved tools, distinguish closed-system tools acceptable for client data from open or consumer tools that are restricted, require attorney review of all AI output before submission to any tribunal or client, and establish a supervision chain. The 2026 Missoula rulings show that a court may look past a single filing to a lawyer’s filings in other matters.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log per filing (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). A contemporaneous log showing each citation verified against Westlaw, Lexis, or the primary source before filing. The 4th and 13th District rules require an explicit accuracy certification, and the 15th District requires disclosure plus a Rule 11 certification.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) District disclosure workflow (4th District Local Rule 3(G); 13th District Local Rule 35; 15th District Rule 3(N)). A pre-filing checklist for any matter in the 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties), the 13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County), or the 15th Judicial District (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties) confirming that AI use is identified, the tool is named, the manner of use is described where the rule requires it, and the certification language is included in the filing itself.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence file (Rule 1.6). For each AI tool used with client information: documentation of data retention and training-opt-out practices, terms-of-service review, closed vs. open system classification, date of review, and responsible attorney.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions (Rules 1.5, 1.6). Address AI use in the engagement agreement or addendum: which tools may be used, whether client information may be submitted to external servers, client consent for open-model tools, and the client’s right to object. Firms may wish to consider whether client consent is needed before client information goes into any third-party system.

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) Pro hac vice compliance check for D. Mont. matters before Judge Molloy (Rule 3.3; the pro hac vice admission order). Out-of-state counsel admitted pro hac vice before Judge Molloy must do their own writing and may not use generative AI drafting programs, under a condition in the order admitting them. Supervising Montana counsel may wish to document awareness and confirm out-of-state co-counsel compliance at the opening of any such matter.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Disclosure decision log (4th District Local Rule 3(G); 13th District Local Rule 35; 15th District Rule 3(N); Rule 3.3). For each filing in those districts, a brief note recording whether AI was used, which tool, how it was used, and the certification language. Where AI was not used, the note confirms that the 4th District’s absence-of-AI presumption was preserved.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Incident response record (Rules 3.3, 5.1, 5.3). If AI-generated content with errors reaches a court filing or client deliverable: documentation of discovery, correction, and any required disclosure.

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