--- title: "Mississippi: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/mississippi" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-MS" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Mississippi: AI rules for lawyers > Mississippi: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/mississippi Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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)](https://ezel.ai/ethics-opinions/msbar/267-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Mississippi in the last 12 months - 1 July 2026 · Dated: [House Bill 1723 (2026 Regular Session): An Act to define the term "artificial intelligence"](#ai-rule-jr-us-ms-hb1723-2026-ai-definition) ## AI instruments ### State bar and regulators #### Ethics Opinion No. 267: Generative AI in the practice of law - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: The Mississippi Bar (Ethics Committee; formal opinions adopted by the Board of Bar Commissioners) - Date on page: November 14, 2024 - Effective date: 14 November 2024 - Status: 14 November 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/ Applies to Mississippi lawyers. The opinion says lawyers in Mississippi may ethically use generative AI if they safeguard client confidential information, are competent to use the technology, take precautions to verify the tool's output, bill reasonably, and obtain the client's informed consent when appropriate. It answers four questions under the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct: confidentiality (Rule 1.6, with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 for supervisors), verification and competence (Rule 1.1), fees and costs (Rule 1.5), and telling the client (Rule 1.4). The Bar no longer publishes opinion text on its public site: the cited Bar URL now shows only the general Ethics Opinions page, which says formal opinions are published in The Mississippi Lawyer and available to members through vLex Fastcase. The Bar's original PDF (msbar.org/media/2tvbldoc/et-op-267.pdf) returned 404 on 2026-10-31. The text was read from a verbatim reproduction on ezel.ai. Key points: - Confidentiality: review the tool's terms of use, privacy and data-retention policies; where possible do not input identifiable client information; if information is still at risk despite precautions, obtain the client's informed consent. Firms should train staff and consider AI policies (Rules 1.6, 5.1, 5.3). - Verification: the lawyer remains fully responsible and should treat the tool like a 'virtual assistant': 'trust but verify'. How much checking is needed depends on the tool and the task (adopting ABA Formal Opinion 512's analysis). Lawyers may not rely solely on GAI for tasks that need professional judgment (Rule 1.1, citing Opinions 263 and 259). - Fees: the actual out-of-pocket cost of a per-use third-party tool may be billed as an expense if this is explained to the client. Absent disclosure, GAI costs are overhead and cannot be charged. Hourly billing is for time actually spent, and time spent learning GAI is not billable. Flat and contingency fees must stay reasonable when GAI makes the work faster (Rule 1.5). - Client disclosure: routine GAI use does not in itself require telling the client unless the client is charged for it, confidential information is at risk, or court or other rules require disclosure. Informed consent is required when confidential client information will go to a third-party provider, when the tool's cost is passed on to the client, or when there is concern that confidential information may be inadvertently disclosed (Rule 1.4). Confirmed 2026-10-31 against the full opinion text reproduced on ezel.ai. The Bar's own copy could not be retrieved: the public page shows no text, the PDF returns 404 and web.archive.org was unreachable. Confidence is medium for that reason. Check the member copy on vLex Fastcase before quoting. ### Legislation #### House Bill 1723 (2026 Regular Session): An Act to define the term "artificial intelligence" - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Mississippi Legislature - Date on page: July 1, 2026 - Effective date: 1 July 2026 - Status: 1 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2026/html/HB/1700-1799/HB1723SG.htm This Act only defines a term. It does not regulate lawyers or courts. It defines 'artificial intelligence' as 'a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments', and says such systems use machine- and human-based inputs to perceive environments, abstract perceptions into models, and use model inference to formulate options for information or action. The definition is codified in Chapter 3, Title 1, Mississippi Code of 1972, and takes effect 1 July 2026. Bill history: passed House 02/04, passed Senate 02/26, enrolled bill signed by the House 02/27 and by the Senate 03/02, approved by the Governor 03/09. Disposition: Law, Chapter 311. Key points: - There are no lawyer, court or disclosure duties. It is relevant only as the statutory meaning of 'artificial intelligence' in Mississippi law. - The bill history is at https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2026/pdf/history/HB/HB1723.xml. That site fails TLS certificate checks, but the content was read on 2026-10-31. ## Sources - The Mississippi Bar (Ethics Committee; formal opinions adopted by the Board of Bar Commissioners): [Ethics Opinion No. 267: Generative AI in the practice of law](https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Mississippi Legislature: [House Bill 1723 (2026 Regular Session): An Act to define the term "artificial intelligence"](https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2026/html/HB/1700-1799/HB1723SG.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Ethics Opinion No. 267 of the Mississippi Bar, "rendered November 14, 2024": full text reproduced verbatim on ezel.ai (secondary host)](https://ezel.ai/ethics-opinions/msbar/267-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [JURIST](https://jurist.org/news/2026/10/us-appeals-court-vacates-ai-tainted-injunction-in-mississippi-dei-lawsuit-and-removes-judge/) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 2 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*