18 March 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceMissouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division ThreeMarch 18, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Missouri: AI rules for lawyers
Missouri, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Missouri has no statewide court rule or order on lawyers' use of AI that we could find. The main guidance is an informal ethics opinion that is advisory, not binding.
Treat AI output like work from a nonlawyer assistant. Verify its accuracy and content, do not rely on it alone, and train and supervise staff.
Vet any AI platform before putting client information into it, including its terms and conditions (Rule 4-1.6(c)).
Check each judge's and court's requirements. The opinion tells lawyers to be mindful of Rule 4-3.4(c) where court orders or rules address AI. Jackson County Division 25 will strike a pleading with fictitious cases and set a show cause hearing on fees. The Eastern District of Missouri says filers are responsible for AI-generated content under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. The statewide material, the Jackson County Division 25 order and the Eastern District notice impose responsibility for contents but do not require disclosing AI use; other judges' orders were not reviewed. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. Informal Opinion 2024-11 does not discuss client consent or disclosure of AI use.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Missouri in the last 12 months
No new or changed AI rules recorded for Missouri in the last 12 months.
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
Practice noteUnited States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriDate not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Updated: September 1, 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceAssociate Circuit Judge Abbie Rothermich, Division 25, Jackson County (16th Judicial Circuit), MissouriUpdated: September 1, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
25 April 2024; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOffice of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of MissouriAdoption Date: April 25, 2024Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
10 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.Show all sources
- Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three: Stevens v. BJC Health System, No. ED 112759: footnote warning on AI-drafted briefs and unlocatable citations · last checked
- United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri: Artificial Intelligence (court website notice; also under Self-Represented Litigants: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) · last checked
- Associate Circuit Judge Abbie Rothermich, Division 25, Jackson County (16th Judicial Circuit), Missouri: Standing Order: The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Missouri Rules of Procedural Conduct R. 4-3.3 Sanctions · last checked
- Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri: Informal Opinion 2024-11: lawyer use of generative artificial intelligence platforms and services · last checked
- Missouri Senate · last checked
- U.S. District Court W.D. Mo. · last checked
- Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel · last checked
- The Missouri Bar · last checked
- AI and the legal profession (Journal of the Missouri Bar, secondary commentary) · last checked
- Missouri Attorney General press releases · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.