Mississippi: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 (rendered 14 November 2024) permits generative AI use if you protect client confidences, are competent with the tool, verify its output ("trust but verify"; you remain fully responsible) and bill reasonably. It adopts ABA Formal Opinion 512's analysis of how much verification is needed.

Billing: you may pass on the actual per-use cost of a third-party tool only if you tell the client. Otherwise AI costs are overhead. Bill hourly only for time actually spent, and do not bill time spent learning AI.

No Mississippi Supreme Court rule, order or court-wide policy on AI in filings was found. Absence has not been confirmed on courts.ms.gov.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found. No state court rule and no AI-specific order from either federal district was found. These were web searches only and were not confirmed on the courts' own sites.

  Opinion 267 does say disclosure is needed where a court or other rule requires it. Client disclosure/consent: it depends. Under Opinion 267, routine use alone does not require telling the client.

  Informed consent is required when confidential client information will go to a third-party AI provider, when the tool's cost is passed on to the client, or when confidential information may be disclosed despite precautions.

  Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar, "rendered November 14, 2024": full text reproduced verbatim on ezel.ai (secondary host)
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.