---
title: "Montana: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/montana"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-MT"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# Montana: AI rules for lawyers
> Montana: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/montana
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## What this means for lawyers
There is no statewide Montana rule that requires a lawyer to disclose generative AI in a court filing. Whether you must tell the court depends on the district, and on whether the matter is before the Department of Revenue's Office of Dispute Resolution.
In the Second Judicial District (Butte-Silver Bow County) and the Fourth Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties), a party who uses generative AI in a pleading or other filed document must name the tool, say how it was used, and certify that they checked the accuracy of any portion the tool drafted or assisted, including the facts, procedural background, citations and legal authority.
In the Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County), from 1 January 2026, a lawyer or self-represented party who used generative AI to prepare any filed document must identify the type of AI and certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate.
The professional-conduct preamble says a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks of relevant technology. The sentence uses "should". Rule 1.1 does not mention technology, and the State Bar states that Montana does not adopt comments to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
As at 31 October 2026.
## Telling the court and the client
**Tell the court:** Varies by court
Court disclosure: depends. No statewide rule was found. Disclosure is required, on different terms, in the Second, Fourth, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Judicial Districts, and from 26 September 2026 a party before the Department of Revenue Office of Dispute Resolution must disclose evidence or a formal filing created using AI. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. No Montana rule of professional conduct, and no State Bar ethics opinion, requiring a lawyer to tell the client or to obtain consent before using AI was found as at 31 October 2026.
- [Rules of Practice, Forms and Orders, Rule 3.G](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf)
- [Order Adopting Local Rule Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Cause No. DV-47-2026-0000346-OC](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/2nd_order_AI.pdf)
- [Local rules, Rule 35](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/13th.pdf)
- [Rules of Practice, Rule 3.N](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/15th.pdf)
- [MAR Notice No. 2026-169.2, adoption of Office of Dispute Resolution rules](https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-2)
- [MAR Notice No. 2026-169.1, proposed Office of Dispute Resolution rules](https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-1)
- [Montana Rules of Professional Conduct](https://courts.mt.gov/external/rules/mtr_prof_cond.pdf)
- [Advisory Opinions of the State Bar Ethics Committee](https://www.montanabar.org/For-Attorneys/State-Bar-Resources/Ethics-Opinions)
**Tell the client:** No
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## What changed in Montana in the last 12 months
- 26 September 2026 · Dated: [ARM 42.2.613 and 42.2.616 — disclosure of evidence or filings created using AI](#ai-rule-jr-us-mt-dor-odr-arm-ai-disclosure)
- 22 September 2026 · Dated: [Order adopting a local rule on pleading requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-mt-2nd-jd-genai-pleading-rule)
- 1 July 2026 · Dated: [Rules of Practice, Rule 3.N — Use of artificial intelligence / disclosure](#ai-rule-jr-us-mt-15th-jd-rule-3n-ai-disclosure)
- 1 January 2026 · Dated: [Local Rules of Practice, Rule 35 — Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-mt-13th-jd-local-rule-35-ai)
## AI instruments
### Courts and tribunals
#### ARM 42.2.613 and 42.2.616 — disclosure of evidence or filings created using AI
- Type: Regulator guidance
- Issuer: Montana Department of Revenue, Office of Dispute Resolution
- Date on page: September 21 2026; Effective Date: September 26, 2026
- Effective date: 26 September 2026
- Status: 26 September 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-2
Applies to proceedings before the Department of Revenue's Office of Dispute Resolution. MAR Notice No. 2026-169.2, page date 21 September 2026, adopts the proposed amendments with no changes, effective 26 September 2026. The adopted text of ARM 42.2.616, set out in the proposal, says a party must disclose to the ODR if they introduce evidence or make any formal filing created using AI, and ARM 42.2.613 defines artificial intelligence, for these rules, as having the same general meaning used by the American Bar Association, including computer technology, software and systems that perform tasks that historically required human intelligence. The rule sentence uses the words 'a party'. The phrase 'or their representatives' appears only in the notice's summary of a public comment; the department's response refers to 'a party's duty'.
Key points:
- Adopted as proposed. Effective 26 September 2026. The wording is in MAR Notice No. 2026-169.1: https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-1
- The rule sentence requires a party to disclose evidence or a formal filing created using AI.
- The definition is broad and is tied to the general meaning used by the ABA. It is not limited to generative AI.
- The words 'parties or their representatives' appear in the notice's summary of a public comment, not in the rule sentence or the department's response. Whether a representative's filing triggers the duty is not stated in the rule text.
- ARM 42.2.620 was repealed as proposed. The AI disclosure sits in ARM 42.2.616.
#### Order adopting a local rule on pleading requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Montana Second Judicial District Court
- Date on page: Filed September 22, 2026; dated this 22nd day of September, 2026
- Effective date: 22 September 2026
- Status: 22 September 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/2nd_order_AI.pdf
Applies in the Second Judicial District Court in Butte-Silver Bow County. A party, in person or through counsel, who uses generative AI to prepare a pleading or other document filed with the court must disclose the specific tool, how it was used, and certify that they checked the accuracy of any portion the tool drafted or assisted, including facts, procedural background, citations and legal authority. A filing without that certification is presumed to certify that no part was prepared with generative AI. The lawyer or self-represented party is responsible for the contents under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and attorney discipline. If the court has good reason to suspect a filing relied on generative AI in violation of the rule and the party has not reasonably dispelled the concern, Rule 11 sanctions can include dismissal of the case, document or pleading without prejudice.
Key points:
- Cause No. DV-47-2026-0000346-OC. The order is a separate PDF from the older Second Judicial District rules booklet.
- Disclosure must name the tool and describe how it was used, and must certify an accuracy check of facts, procedure, citations and legal authority.
- Absence of the certification is presumed to mean that no generative AI was used.
- The definition covers a computer tool that generates new content, such as images or text, from a prompt by learning from a large reference database, and tools that are substantially similar.
- The sanctions clause refers to failure to comply with 'this standing order'.
#### Rules of Practice, Rule 3.N — Use of artificial intelligence / disclosure
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Montana Fifteenth Judicial District Court
- Date on page: EFFECTIVE as of today, July 1, 2026; dated July 1, 2026
- Effective date: 1 July 2026
- Status: 1 July 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/15th.pdf
Applies to the Fifteenth Judicial District, Daniels, Sheridan and Roosevelt Counties, including self-represented parties. If any document submitted for filing was prepared in whole or in part with an AI service or chatbot, the party must clearly disclose that fact in the document and certify, under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11, that the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. The rule does not require the filer to name the tool or to describe how it was used.
Key points:
- The order adopts the attached rules as the local rules of the Fifteenth Judicial District, effective 1 July 2026.
- Disclosure is that an AI service or chatbot was used. The rule gives ChatGPT as an example.
- The certification repeats the Rule 11 warranty for legal contentions.
- The rule text does not require the name of the tool or a description of how it was used.
#### Local Rules of Practice, Rule 35 — Artificial Intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court
- Date on page: Effective January 1, 2026; dated this 1st day of January, 2026
- Effective date: 1 January 2026
- Status: 1 January 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/13th.pdf
Applies to documents filed with the Thirteenth Judicial District Court. The adoption clause puts the rules in force in Yellowstone County from 1 January 2026. If a lawyer for a party, or a self-represented party, has used generative AI to prepare any filed document, they must identify the type of AI used and certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate. The rule text does not require a description of how the tool was used and does not set out a separate sanctions clause.
Key points:
- The trigger is use of generative AI in preparing any document filed in the 13th Judicial District.
- The filer must identify the type of AI used.
- The filer must certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate.
- The duty covers lawyers and self-represented parties.
#### Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble paragraph (5) — technology and competence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
- Date on page: Date of Last Amendment to these Rules: 29OCT2020
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: Date of Last Amendment to these Rules: 29OCT2020; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.mt.gov/external/rules/mtr_prof_cond.pdf
Applies to lawyers under the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, AF 09-0688. Preamble paragraph (5) says that in all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent, and that competence implies an obligation to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Rule 1.1 itself says only that a lawyer shall provide competent representation, requiring the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Preamble paragraph (15) says that comments do not add obligations to the Rules, and the State Bar ethics page states that Montana does not adopt comments.
Key points:
- The technology sentence is in the preamble and uses 'should'. It is not the text of Rule 1.1.
- Rule 1.1 does not mention technology.
- The preamble says comments do not add obligations to the Rules.
- The compilation's last-amendment date is 29 October 2020. That date is not stated to be the date of the technology sentence.
- No formal State Bar ethics opinion on AI was found on the ethics-opinions page.
#### Order opening comment on a proposed additional comment to Montana Rule of Evidence 901(c)
- Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation
- Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
- Date on page: FILED 07/23/2026; comments until August 18, 2026
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: Consultation, not in force
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=577078
This is a proposal, not an adopted rule. In AF 07-0031 the Supreme Court invited comment until 18 August 2026 on an additional comment to proposed Rule of Evidence 901(c), after a 90-day comment period opened on 18 May 2026 for proposed amendments to Rules 612, 803, 901 and 106. The attached comment quotes proposed (c)(1): if a challenger shows that a jury reasonably could find an item was fabricated, in whole or in part, by generative AI, the item is admissible only if the proponent shows it is more likely than not authentic. The comment describes (c)(2) and (c)(3) without quoting them, and the published Rules of Evidence still contain only Rule 901(a) and (b)(1) to (b)(10).
Key points:
- The order does not adopt Rule 901(c). The rules index still lists this order in the Proposed Rule column.
- The Commission on Rules of Evidence was divided about proposing the rule.
- Proposed (c)(1) is quoted in the comment. The black-letter text of (c)(2) and (c)(3) is not in this PDF.
- The comment says (c)(2) would define generative AI broadly as technology that, from a prompt, creates or materially alters text, images, video, audio or synthetic data, and that (c)(3) would keep Rules 901 and 902 in play.
- This proposal is about authenticity of evidence. It does not set a duty for how lawyers draft filings.
#### Rules of Practice, Rule 3.G — Pleading requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Montana Fourth Judicial District Court
- Date on page: Revised October 31, 2025
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: Revised October 31, 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf
Applies in the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula and Mineral Counties. A party, in person or through counsel, who uses generative AI in a pleading or other document filed with the court must disclose the specific tool, how it was used, and certify that they checked the accuracy of any portion the tool drafted or assisted, including facts, procedural background, citations and legal authority. A filing without that certification is presumed to certify that no generative AI was used. The lawyer or self-represented party is responsible under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the professional-conduct and discipline rules, and sanctions can include dismissal without prejudice.
Key points:
- Rule 3.G is in the filing rule. The header is 'Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula & Mineral Counties'.
- The duty is to name the tool, explain how it was used, and certify an accuracy check.
- A missing certification is presumed to be a certification that generative AI was not used.
- Generative AI is defined as a computer tool that generates new content from a prompt by learning from a large reference database, including substantially similar tools.
- The date Rule 3.G was first adopted is not on the page.
### Legislation
#### House Bill 178, Chapter 427 (2025) — government use of artificial intelligence, MCA 2-21-101 to 2-21-104
- Type: Legislation
- Issuer: Montana Legislature
- Date on page: 10/01/2025 on the effective-dates table updated 11/5/2025
- Effective date: 1 October 2025
- Status: 1 October 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0427.pdf
Chapter 427, Laws of 2025, is codified as MCA 2-21-101 to 2-21-104 and does not regulate private law firms. A government entity or state officer may not use an artificial intelligence system for cognitive behavioral manipulation, for classification that causes unlawful discrimination or a disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or for surveillance of public spaces, with stated exceptions for locating a missing, endangered or wanted person and for continuous facial surveillance under Title 44, chapter 15, part 1. Unreviewed AI material that is published, and a public interface that uses AI, must be disclosed, with exemptions for a peace officer's crime investigation, and an AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights, duties, or privileges and immunities must be reviewable and subject to rejection or modification by a human in an appropriate responsible position. 'Government entity' takes its meaning from MCA 46-5-110, which was not opened.
Key points:
- Effective 1 October 2025 on the official chapter table, consistent with MCA 1-2-201.
- History lines on MCA 2-21-101 to 2-21-104 read 'En. Sec. 1' through 'En. Sec. 4, Ch. 427, L. 2025'.
- Disclosure duties apply when government publishes unreviewed AI material or runs a public interface that uses AI.
- Human review is required when an AI recommendation or decision could affect rights, duties, or privileges and immunities.
- The Act binds government entities and state officers. It is not a court-filing rule for private lawyers.
#### Senate Bill 212, Chapter 150 (2025) — Right to Compute Act
- Type: Legislation
- Issuer: Montana Legislature
- Date on page: 04/16/2025 on the effective-dates table updated 11/5/2025; section 10 effective on passage and approval
- Effective date: 16 April 2025
- Status: 16 April 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0150.pdf
The Right to Compute Act limits government actions that restrict private ownership or use of computational resources for lawful purposes, where those actions infringe property and free-expression rights, to measures that are demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer must develop a reasonable risk-management policy that considers the NIST AI risk-management framework, the ISO/IEC 4200 standard as named in the bill, or another recognised framework, and a plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance. Critical artificial intelligence means a system designed and deployed to make, or to be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision, with stated exclusions, and the Act does not require lawyers to disclose AI in court filings. It directs codification as a new part of Title 2, chapter 10, and the numbered code sections were not opened.
Key points:
- Effective 16 April 2025 on the official chapter table. Section 10 says effective on passage and approval.
- The risk-management duty falls on a deployer only when critical infrastructure is controlled by critical AI.
- The bill prints the standard as 'ISO/IEC 4200'.
- Government restrictions on lawful private computing must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
- This is not a disclosure or competence rule for lawyers' filings.
## Sources
23 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.
- Montana Department of Revenue, Office of Dispute Resolution: [ARM 42.2.613 and 42.2.616 — disclosure of evidence or filings created using AI](https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-2) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Second Judicial District Court: [Order adopting a local rule on pleading requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/2nd_order_AI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Fifteenth Judicial District Court: [Rules of Practice, Rule 3.N — Use of artificial intelligence / disclosure](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/15th.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court: [Local Rules of Practice, Rule 35 — Artificial Intelligence](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/13th.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Supreme Court: [Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble paragraph (5) — technology and competence](https://courts.mt.gov/external/rules/mtr_prof_cond.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Supreme Court: [Order opening comment on a proposed additional comment to Montana Rule of Evidence 901(c)](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=577078) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Fourth Judicial District Court: [Rules of Practice, Rule 3.G — Pleading requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence](https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Legislature: [House Bill 178, Chapter 427 (2025) — government use of artificial intelligence, MCA 2-21-101 to 2-21-104](https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0427.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Montana Legislature: [Senate Bill 212, Chapter 150 (2025) — Right to Compute Act](https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Sessions/69th/Contractor_index/CH0150.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [MAR Notice No. 2026-169.1, proposed Office of Dispute Resolution rules](https://revenue.mt.gov/news/rules-hearing/MAR-Notice-2026-169-1) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Advisory Opinions of the State Bar Ethics Committee](https://www.montanabar.org/For-Attorneys/State-Bar-Resources/Ethics-Opinions) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Supreme Court (State Law Library compilation)](https://courts.mt.gov/external/rules/mtr_evid.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Judicial Branch](https://courts.mt.gov/courts/rules/supreme) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [State Bar of Montana](https://www.montanabar.org/For-Attorneys/Mandatory-Continuing-Legal-Education/Attorneys/MCLE-Rules) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0020/chapter_0210/part_0010/section_0010/0020-0210-0010-0010.html) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Legislative Services](https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Laws%20and%20Constitution/MCA%20Supplements/TABLE-EFFECTIVE-DATES-BY-CHAPTER-NUMBER.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0010/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0010/0010-0020-0020-0010.html) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Supreme Court](https://courts.mt.gov/external/rules/MT_Uniform_District_Court_rules.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Montana Judicial Branch](https://courts.mt.gov/courts/rules/district) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana](https://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/sites/mtd/files/LocalRules_12012025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana](https://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/sites/mtd/files/LocalRules_2026_Redline.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana](https://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [U.S. District Court for the District of Montana](https://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/standing-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026
## Key facts
- Kind: State
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0
- AI instruments recorded: 9
*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*