South Carolina: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney South Carolina firm: No formal or informal South Carolina Bar opinion governs attorney AI use today, so the operative framework is the existing Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR), the 2019 technology-competence comment to Rule 1.1, and the South Carolina Supreme Court’s March 2025 Interim Policy as a strong signal of judicial expectations. The most acute risk is hallucinated citations under Rule 3.3, with confidentiality exposure under Rule 1.6 a close second. Firms that cannot show a written AI policy, vendor diligence, and a citation verification habit are exposed without any safe-harbor opinion to point to.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification checklist for every court filing, and vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool in use.

What governs by default

The South Carolina Bar has not issued a formal or informal ethics opinion on AI in legal practice. In the absence of bar guidance, the operative framework is the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR), with these rules most directly implicated by AI use:

• Rule 1.1 (Competence). South Carolina amended Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 effective 2019-11-27. The change adds a duty to keep abreast of “the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses.” It tracks ABA Ethics 20/20’s parallel change to Model Rule 1.1. Lawyers must understand AI tools and their known failure modes before deploying them. Failure modes include hallucinations, biased output, and data retention. See the amendment order and current rule text.
• Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality). Before inputting client information into an AI tool, the lawyer must evaluate whether the vendor trains on user inputs, the data retention policy, and whether privacy architecture satisfies confidentiality obligations. Public free-tier tools that train on inputs present heightened risk.
• Rule 1.4 (Communication). South Carolina has not resolved whether AI use must be disclosed to clients. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the closest available framework: routine use does not require disclosure, but substantive delegation does.
• Rule 1.5 (Fees). Billing pre-AI hourly rates for tasks meaningfully accelerated by AI raises a Rule 1.5 concern. Op 512 treats general technology learning as overhead.
• Rule 3.3 (Candor). Submitting AI-hallucinated citations or fabricated quotations to a tribunal violates Rule 3.3. The Supreme Court’s March 2025 policy explicitly warns AI output “may contain inaccuracies” and that reliance without verification is impermissible.
• Rule 5.3 (Nonlawyer Assistance). Supervising attorneys remain responsible for reviewing AI-assisted work product produced by paralegals or staff.

In the absence of South Carolina-specific guidance, ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is persuasive authority. It offers the closest available framework on competence, confidentiality, communication, fees, and candor. The South Carolina Bar’s “Ethics Watch” magazine column has published practitioner articles applying Rules 1.1 and 1.6 to AI. Those are professional commentary, not formal opinions.

What federal courts in South Carolina require for AI use in filings

No district-wide local rule, general order, or standing order on AI use in filings has been identified for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The D.S.C. standing orders index does not list an AI disclosure order. Individual judges may impose chambers-specific requirements. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What South Carolina state courts require for AI use in filings

Chief Justice John Kittredge issued the South Carolina Supreme Court Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence on 2025-03-25 (primary source PDF). It is the only state-level judicial document on AI. The policy applies to all South Carolina Judicial Branch employees: justices, judges, law clerks, clerks, court reporters, interns, IT, and administrative staff. It is not a rule governing private attorneys.

Key provisions: AI may not be used to draft memoranda, orders, or opinions without direct human oversight. AI output may not be used verbatim and may not be a sole source for decisions. AI use must not compromise client confidentiality or the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The policy lists ChatGPT, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Grok, Gemini, Meta Chat, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, and CoCounsel among approved tools. Even approved tools may contain inaccuracies. The policy remains in effect until further order. See also the court’s news announcement.

No statewide South Carolina state court rule and no individual circuit court, family court, or probate court AI standing order has been identified for private attorneys.

What AI-related rules are pending in South Carolina?

The 2025-2026 General Assembly session has several AI-related bills, none of which directly regulate attorney conduct. S. 28 and S. 29 (AI-generated CSAM and morphed images) have been enacted. H. 896 / H. 5138 (Chatbot Protection Act, companion bills) would require chatbot operators to disclose AI identity to users, with civil enforcement. If enacted, this could affect law firms operating AI-driven client intake chatbots.

H. 788 (AI in therapy), H. 4657 (Right to Compute Act, prefiled December 2025), H. 443 (physician supervision of AI in healthcare coverage), and S. 225 (open-source AI development) are tracking items without direct attorney-conduct implications. The House Standing Committee on AI and Cybersecurity, chaired by Rep. Jeff Bradley, is the institutional venue for any future attorney-conduct bill. Bill text and status at the South Carolina Legislature.

How do malpractice carriers in South Carolina treat AI use?

No South Carolina-specific carrier AI guidance has been identified. The South Carolina Bar preferred insurance providers list is the starting point for carrier identification. ALPS Insurance writes coverage in South Carolina and has published national AI-related risk management guidance. South Carolina does not require attorneys to carry malpractice insurance; voluntary coverage is the market norm. Firms should review current policy language for AI-related coverage or exclusions. Confirm with the carrier or broker whether AI documentation affects renewal terms.

What does my South Carolina malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No South Carolina carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard the carrier or broker references is the existing Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 5.3), the 2019 technology-competence comment, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive authority. Be ready to produce: a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records, citation verification logs for court filings, and a matter-level AI use log showing supervisory review. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a South Carolina firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational items.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Approved tools list. Bar on inputting confidential client information into non-enterprise AI tools. Required human review of AI output before delivery. Supervisory chain for non-attorney AI use. Billing rules consistent with Rule 1.5 and Op 512.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist. Required independent verification of every citation in any AI-assisted court filing or client document. Addresses Rule 3.3 candor risk and the Supreme Court’s March 2025 verification expectation.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check at the opening of each D.S.C. matter. No district-wide rule exists, but individual chambers may impose their own requirements.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Three documentation items.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool. Capture: vendor name, product tier (free vs. enterprise), data retention and training policy, terms of service summary, last review date. Documents Rule 1.6 reasonable inquiry.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) CLE and training records tracking AI-related continuing education under Rule 1.1 Comment 8’s technology-competence requirement.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering AI-assisted work by associates, paralegals, and staff under Rule 5.3.

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) Per-matter AI use notes. Capture the tool used, task performed, date, and the supervising attorney’s review of output. Demonstrates Rule 5.3 supervision and Rule 1.1 competence on a per-matter basis.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI provisions disclosing AI use in general terms. Add specific informed consent for matters where AI performs substantive drafting or analysis. This is consistent with Op 512 pending South Carolina-specific guidance.

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