--- title: "Michigan: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/michigan" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-MI" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Michigan: AI rules for lawyers > Michigan: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/michigan Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs) - [Barber v Morawa, No. 374773 (Mich Ct App, for publication)](https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/opinions/appeals/2026/061726/85990.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Michigan in the last 12 months - 17 June 2026 · Dated: [Barber v Morawa, No. 374773 (published opinion): sanctions for AI-fabricated and unsupported legal authority](#ai-rule-jr-us-mi-barber-v-morawa-coa) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Barber v Morawa, No. 374773 (published opinion): sanctions for AI-fabricated and unsupported legal authority - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Michigan Court of Appeals - Date on page: June 17, 2026 - Effective date: 17 June 2026 - Status: 17 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/opinions/appeals/2026/061726/85990.pdf Published Court of Appeals opinion holding that counsel who repeatedly filed AI-generated fabricated and unsupported authority violated the reasonable-inquiry duty in MCR 1.109(E)(5). The court said AI may be a useful research and drafting tool but does not alter an attorney's professional obligations, and that lawyers must verify that cited authorities exist, read them and ensure they support the propositions asserted. Finding violations of MCR 7.216(C)(1) and MCR 1.109(E)(5) (sanctions mandatory under MCR 1.109(E)(6)), it remanded for the trial court to fix defendant's actual damages and expenses of the appeal (including reasonable attorney fees) under MCR 7.216(C)(2), payable by counsel personally, and directed the Clerk to forward the opinion to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation. The court noted that no published Michigan decision had addressed the appropriate sanction for AI-fabricated or unsupported authority. Key points: - Signing a filing certifies reasonable inquiry under MCR 1.109(E)(5); the test is objective and subjective good faith is irrelevant. - Lawyers must verify that cited cases exist, read them and check they support the stated propositions. - Sanction: remand for an evidentiary hearing on the other side's actual damages and expenses of the appeal, including reasonable attorney fees (MCR 7.216(C)(2)), payable by counsel personally. - Opinion forwarded to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation. - A later AI-assisted 'Notice of Correction' that repeated the verification failure was treated as aggravating. #### Proposed amendment to LR 5.1(a)(4): disclosing use of generative AI (published for comment December 2023; not in current LR 5.1) - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Date on page: December 4, 2023 (judges' meeting) - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf The court's notice proposed that where generative AI is used to compose or draft a paper for filing, the filer must disclose its use and attest that citations of authority were verified by a human using print volumes or traditional legal databases and that the language in the paper was checked for accuracy by the filer. The current published LR 5.1 on the court's website (dated December 1, 2022) contains no AI wording, so the proposal appears not to have been adopted in that form. Federal filers in this district should still check individual judges' orders and any later local-rule notices. Key points: - Proposal only: not found in the current LR 5.1 text read on 2026-10-31. - Proposed text required disclosure of generative AI use and human verification of citations. - No notice of adoption or withdrawal was found on the court's site; status of any other AI order not confirmed. ### State bar and regulators #### Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI (special report) - Type: Bar report - Issuer: State Bar of Michigan (Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup) - Date on page: Posted: June 11, 2025 - Effective date: 11 June 2025 - Status: 11 June 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/nid/6137 State Bar special report on AI and the legal profession by the Board of Commissioners' AI Workgroup (chaired by SBM President Joseph P. McGill), covering attorneys' obligation to understand AI, ethical considerations, unauthorized practice of law, access to justice and public policy. The news release quotes the report as saying AI programs should only supplement, not substitute, a lawyer's work and that the report is a living document to be updated. It is a policy and educational report, not a rule. Key points: - Lawyers have an obligation to understand AI and consider ethical issues when using it. - 'AI programs should only supplement, not substitute, a lawyer's work.' - Report is intended to be updated; check the State Bar AI page for the current version. Confirmed via the State Bar news release only; the report PDF itself was not read. #### Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions (ethics guidance) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: State Bar of Michigan - Date on page: Publication date: November 18, 2024 (fees FAQ on AI tool development: February 11, 2025); Last updated: November 2024 - Effective date: 18 November 2024 - Status: 18 November 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs State Bar ethics FAQs saying the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct apply fully when lawyers use AI, naming MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 2.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1/5.3, 7.1 and 8.4 as most relevant. Lawyers must understand AI, review all AI output and check citations, and remain responsible for AI-assisted work as for staff work. The FAQs say the MRPC do not currently create a duty to tell the client or the court that AI is being used, except where use implicates the rules (for example, client consent is needed if confidential information may be exposed, MRPC 1.6), or, for the court, where the court requests it, for example by local rule or case management order. Fees must reflect actual time spent, and AI tool costs are overhead unless disclosed to the client in advance. The page states the FAQs are neither legal advice nor an ethics opinion. Key points: - Verify all AI output and citations; signing certifies reasonable inquiry (MCR 1.109(E)(5)), and unverified AI work risks breaching MRPC 3.3 and sanctions (the FAQs cite MCR 2.302(G)(4) and FRCP 11(c)). - No general MRPC duty to inform the client or the court of AI use, but court rules, local rules or case management orders may require it. - Do not input confidential client information without client consent (MRPC 1.6(c)(1)) and reasonable steps to check provider security. - Bill only actual time spent; flat fees may be unreasonable if AI cuts the work substantially (MRPC 1.5). - AI subscription costs are overhead unless disclosed to the client in advance of the engagement. - Do not bill clients for learning to use an AI tool; firm-wide AI tool development is overhead (answer dated February 11, 2025). #### Ethics Opinion JI-155: judges must keep up with advancing technology, including AI - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics - Date on page: October 27, 2023 - Effective date: 27 October 2023 - Status: 27 October 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155 Judicial ethics opinion of the State Bar's Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics. Syllabus: judicial officers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including but not limited to artificial intelligence (references include MCJC 2(B), (C) and 3(A)(1)). The opinion says courts should ask the right questions and place their analysis of how they reached their conclusion on the record. It is aimed at judicial officers, not lawyers; the State Bar news item reporting it adds that technology competence is an ethical responsibility for all Michigan attorneys and that the Michigan Supreme Court added technology competence to the Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 2020 (that order was not read). Key points: - Applies to judicial officers (Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct), not directly to lawyers. - Judicial officers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including AI, and should place their analysis of AI use on the record. - State Bar news item (not the opinion) records that technology competence was added to the lawyer rules effective January 2020. ## Sources - Michigan Court of Appeals: [Barber v Morawa, No. 374773 (published opinion): sanctions for AI-fabricated and unsupported legal authority](https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/opinions/appeals/2026/061726/85990.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: [Proposed amendment to LR 5.1(a)(4): disclosing use of generative AI (published for comment December 2023; not in current LR 5.1)](https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Michigan (Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup): [Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI (special report)](https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/nid/6137) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Michigan: [Artificial Intelligence for Attorneys: Frequently Asked Questions (ethics guidance)](https://michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics: [Ethics Opinion JI-155: judges must keep up with advancing technology, including AI](https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [US District Court E.D. Mich.](https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/attorneys/localrules?ruleno=5.1) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 5 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*