Montana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Montana firm: No formal bar opinion or binding statewide court rule governs AI use in Montana practice. Attorneys filing in the 4th Judicial District (Missoula) or the 13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County) are subject to mandatory AI disclosure and citation-accuracy certification. Montana Rules 1.1, 1.6, 1.5, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 apply directly to AI use. The February 2026 Missoula public defender incident showed how quickly an undisclosed AI filing can draw a motion to strike. The absence of statewide guidance is not a safe harbor; it places the compliance burden on the firm.

Start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a 4th and 13th District disclosure workflow for filings in Missoula and Billings.

What governs by default

The State Bar of Montana has issued no formal ethics opinion, no informal opinion, and no AI task force report. Its only published AI resource is an informal 2023 educational article authored by out-of-state legal technology consultants, available through the State Bar of Montana news section. It is not an ethics committee product, not binding, and not 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, 5.3 (supervisory responsibility) carry their ordinary meaning when a Montana firm uses AI. Rule 3.3 by itself requires verification of any AI-generated citation before filing. That obligation runs regardless of whether a local rule expressly demands disclosure.

Montana does not formally adopt the comments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 on technological competence is therefore persuasive authority only, not incorporated into Montana’s framework. The underlying Rule 1.1 competence duty still applies. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is similarly persuasive, not endorsed by the State Bar of Montana.

What federal courts in Montana require for AI use in filings

No court-wide AI standing order or local rule amendment has been adopted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and D. Mont. LR 11.1 (signing of pleadings) supply the operative accuracy framework for all D. Mont. judges except Judge Molloy.

Judge Donald W. Molloy: A June 22, 2023 condition on pro hac vice admission prohibits “use of artificial intelligence automated drafting programs, such as Chat GPT” by out-of-state counsel admitted pro hac vice before Judge Molloy. The condition does not apply to Montana-licensed attorneys or to other D. Mont. judges. Reference: Judge Molloy chambers page.

What Montana state courts require for AI use in filings

The Montana Supreme Court has issued no statewide AI order or administrative rule. Twenty of Montana’s 22 judicial districts have no AI-specific local rule. Two 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. 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, the filing must identify the type of AI used. It must also certify that every citation to law or to the record has been verified as accurate. The current Yellowstone County local rules (signed January 1, 2026) carry this provision; some practitioner summaries describe an earlier version effective April 1, 2025. Primary source: Yellowstone County local rules. See the tracker entry for 13th District Rule 35.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Montana?

February 2026 Missoula public defender incident (4th Judicial District). A criminal defense motion filed by Missoula public defender Monica Tranel contained apparently AI-generated content without the Rule 3(G) disclosure. One 13-page section read “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence…’” On February 17, 2026, the county attorney moved to strike. The motion to strike cited Rule 3(G) noncompliance, factual errors, and concern that the public defender’s office had uploaded sensitive client documents to an external AI server. Tranel subsequently moved to strike her own filing and submitted a corrected motion. The incident concretely illustrates how a single noncompliant filing can produce disclosure, citation-accuracy, and Rule 1.6 confidentiality exposure.

What AI-related rules are pending in Montana?

No State Bar of Montana AI task force, draft opinion, or rulemaking process has been announced. The 2025 Legislature passed two signed AI laws, neither of which directly governs attorney practice. SB 212 (Right to Compute Act, signed April 17, 2025) protects private use of computational resources against government restriction; its critical-infrastructure risk-management provision is directed at infrastructure operators, not law firms. HB 178 (signed May 5, 2025) restricts Montana government entities from using AI for behavioral manipulation, discriminatory classification, malicious purposes, or widespread surveillance, and does not regulate private firms. SB 212 text: Montana 69th Session, Chapter 150.

How do malpractice carriers in Montana treat AI use?

Headquartered in Missoula, ALPS Corporation is the State Bar of Montana’s endorsed professional liability carrier. By state bar endorsements, ALPS is the largest direct writer of legal malpractice insurance in the country. ALPS is not exclusive in Montana; other admitted carriers also write attorney professional liability. With a limited exception for participants in the bar’s Lawyer Referral Service, Montana does not require attorneys in private practice to carry malpractice insurance.

ALPS has published national guidance on AI risk. Two themes recur: over-reliance on AI without attorney review may implicate unauthorized-practice exclusions under most LPL policies, and allowing AI to make critical legal judgments without oversight can create coverage gaps. No Montana-specific AI endorsement, exclusion, or premium surcharge has been documented as of 2026-04-23.

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

ALPS has not published the specific AI questions it will ask on the 2026-2027 application. The substantive standard ALPS’s published guidance points to is the existing professional conduct framework: competence, confidentiality, supervision, and the unauthorized-practice line. Plan on producing a written AI use policy, vendor due diligence records, citation-verification documentation, and training records. Firms practicing in the 4th or 13th Judicial Districts should also be prepared to show their disclosure-compliance 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 February 2026 Missoula incident shows that a policy on paper that is not followed creates exposure rather than mitigating it.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log per filing (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Contemporaneous log showing each citation verified against Westlaw, Lexis, or the primary source before filing. Required as a practical matter under Rule 3.3 statewide and as an explicit certification under 4th and 13th District rules.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) 4th and 13th District disclosure workflow (Local Rule 3(G); Local Rule 35). Pre-filing checklist for any matter in Missoula or Billings confirming AI use is identified, the specific tool is named, the manner of use is described where the rule requires it, and accuracy 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. Cover 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. Rule 1.6 requires consent analysis before submitting client information to 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; chambers order). Out-of-state counsel admitted pro hac vice before Judge Molloy may not use AI drafting tools. Supervising Montana counsel should 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 (Local Rule 3(G); Local Rule 35; Rule 3.3). For each filing in Missoula or Billings, keep 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 should confirm that the 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. Prompt voluntary correction is a material mitigating factor in sanctions decisions.

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