--- title: "Missouri: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/missouri" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-MO" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Missouri: AI rules for lawyers > Missouri: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/missouri Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Standing Order: The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Missouri Rules of Procedural Conduct R. 4-3.3 Sanctions](https://www.16thcircuit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/Judges/Docs/div-25/standing-order-ai-final.pdf) - [Artificial Intelligence](https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence) - [Informal Opinion 2024-11](https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## 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 #### Stevens v. BJC Health System, No. ED 112759: footnote warning on AI-drafted briefs and unlocatable citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three - Date on page: March 18, 2025 - Effective date: 18 March 2025 - Status: 18 March 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mis-crt-app-eas-dis-div-thr/117060624.html An appeal by a self-represented (pro se) appellant from a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission decision; the Commission was affirmed. A footnote records that six cited cases could not be located, says this suggests AI use in drafting the brief, and warns litigants that using AI to draft a legal document may lead to sanctions if the user fails to critically review the end product. No sanction was imposed in this case. The footnote also cites Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). Key points: - Warning, not a sanction, in this case. - Applies the same expectation to any person filing in the court: critically review AI output before filing. - Text was read on a commercial mirror (FindLaw); the official courts.mo.gov copy was not reachable. #### Artificial Intelligence (court website notice; also under Self-Represented Litigants: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) - Type: Court policy - Issuer: United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence A website notice for attorneys and self-represented parties in the Eastern District of Missouri. By presenting any paper to the court, they acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with AI, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The pages do not call it a local rule or general order and do not require disclosure of AI use. Key points: - The same wording appears at moed.uscourts.gov/node/33 (Self-Represented Litigants page). - Responsibility is framed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). - No disclosure or certification requirement appears in the notice; individual judges' requirements were not reviewed. #### Standing Order: The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Missouri Rules of Procedural Conduct R. 4-3.3 Sanctions - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: Associate Circuit Judge Abbie Rothermich, Division 25, Jackson County (16th Judicial Circuit), Missouri - Date on page: Updated: September 1, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Updated: September 1, 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.16thcircuit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/Judges/Docs/div-25/standing-order-ai-final.pdf A single-division standing order for attorneys and self-represented parties appearing in Division 25 of the Jackson County circuit court. Presenting any paper makes the filer responsible for its contents, including any part generated with AI. Fictitious or hallucinated citations lead to the pleading being stricken and a show cause hearing on attorneys' fees. It does not require disclosure of AI use. Key points: - Filers are held responsible for all contents, including any portion generated with AI. - If cases are found to be hallucinated or fictitious, the pleading will be stricken and a show cause hearing on attorneys' fees scheduled. - Any pleading or form document (AI generated or not) that misstates the law or has not been subjected to a reasonable inquiry will lead to a show cause order on sanctions; the order cites Rule 4-3.3 and Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 53 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). - Possible sanctions include non-monetary directives, a penalty paid into court, attorney's fees and expenses, and dismissal. ### State bar and regulators #### Informal Opinion 2024-11: lawyer use of generative artificial intelligence platforms and services - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri - Date on page: Adoption Date: April 25, 2024 - Effective date: 25 April 2024 - Status: 25 April 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/ An informal ethics opinion answering whether a lawyer may use generative AI and what to consider when setting a firm policy. It applies Missouri Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.6, 4-3.3, 4-3.4, 4-5.1, 4-5.3 and 4-5.4 and treats AI output like help from a nonlawyer that the lawyer must verify. The site says informal opinion summaries are advisory and not binding. Key points: - Competence: the lawyer should get education and training to work out what types of generative AI are and are not appropriate for use. - Confidentiality: the lawyer must carefully assess any platform, including its terms and conditions, and make reasonable efforts to safeguard client information under Rule 4-1.6(c). - The lawyer should not rely solely on AI-created content and must verify its accuracy and content in line with Rule 4-5.3; the opinion notes AI tools are not always accurate (Rule 4-3.3). - To the extent court orders or rules address generative AI, the lawyer should be mindful of Rule 4-3.4(c); firms should develop a supervisory framework and training (Rules 4-5.1, 4-5.3) and consider the effect on fee reasonableness (Rule 4-1.5(a)). - The opinion does not discuss client consent or disclosure of AI use. ## Sources 10 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - 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](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mis-crt-app-eas-dis-div-thr/117060624.html) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri: [Artificial Intelligence (court website notice; also under Self-Represented Litigants: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence)](https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.16thcircuit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/Judges/Docs/div-25/standing-order-ai-final.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Missouri Senate](https://www.senate.mo.gov/BillTracking/Bills/BillInformation?year=2026&billid=691) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [U.S. District Court W.D. Mo.](https://www.mow.uscourts.gov/district/rules) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel](https://mochiefcounsel.org/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [The Missouri Bar](https://www.mobar.org/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [AI and the legal profession (Journal of the Missouri Bar, secondary commentary)](https://news.mobar.org/artificial-intelligence-and-the-legal-profession-practical-and-ethical-considerations-in-the-new-technological-era/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Missouri Attorney General press releases](https://ago.mo.gov/press-releases/) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 4 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*