Michigan: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Verify every AI-sourced authority. The Court of Appeals (published, 17 June 2026) held that filing AI-fabricated or unsupported authority breaches the reasonable-inquiry duty in MCR 1.109(E)(5); lawyers must confirm cases exist, read them and check they support the proposition.

Sanctions can be personal. In that case the court remanded for the other side's actual damages and expenses of the appeal (including reasonable attorney fees, MCR 7.216(C)(2)) to be paid by counsel personally, and the opinion was sent to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation.

Existing professional conduct rules apply to AI. The State Bar's FAQs (November 2024) point to MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 2.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1/5.3, 7.1 and 8.4, and say lawyers answer for AI-assisted work as for staff work.

Federal filings: the E.D. Mich. proposed an AI disclosure rule (LR 5.1(a)(4)) in December 2023, but the current LR 5.1 text has no AI provision. Check individual judges' orders.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no statewide rule found. The State Bar says the MRPC do not require telling the court unless the court requests it, for example by local rule or case management order. The signature certification in MCR 1.109(E)(5) applies regardless. Client disclosure/consent: depends. No general duty to disclose AI use, but client consent is required where use may expose confidential information (MRPC 1.6), and MRPC 1.4 may call for communication; advance disclosure is needed to bill AI tool costs.

  Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions

  Barber v Morawa, No. 374773 (Mich Ct App, for publication)
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.