← All states

Summary

South Carolina has no formal bar ethics opinion on AI. The primary binding development is the South Carolina Supreme Court's Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (March 2025), which governs judicial branch employees but signals expectations for practitioners. South Carolina adopted a technology-competence comment to Rule 1.1 in 2019.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

• Rule 1.1
• Rule 1.4
• Rule 1.5
• Rule 1.6
• Rule 3.3
• Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

No South Carolina-specific carrier guidance has been identified. ALPS provides coverage in SC and has published national AI risk management guidance; firms should review policy language and AI documentation at renewal.

The South Carolina Bar has not issued a formal or informal ethics opinion on AI in legal practice. The governing ethical obligations flow from existing South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR), supplemented by ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority. South Carolina amended Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 in 2019 to add a technology-competence duty.

The primary binding development is the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, issued March 25, 2025 by Chief Justice John Kittredge. The policy applies to judicial branch employees but signals clear judicial expectations: AI output may not be used verbatim, may not serve as a sole source for decisions, and accuracy remains the user’s responsibility. No South Carolina state court or division of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina has adopted an AI-specific standing order or local rule.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney South Carolina firm: Build a risk management framework on three pillars: the technology-competence and confidentiality duties in Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3; ABA Formal Opinion 512 as the closest analogous framework; and the Supreme Court’s March 2025 policy as a signal of judicial expectations.

Last verified: April 23, 2026