South Carolina: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

The Supreme Court's Interim Policy (25 March 2025) binds judicial branch staff, not lawyers, but it expressly reminds lawyers and litigants that they are responsible for the accuracy of all work product and must be cautious with generative AI output.

Unverified AI citations have drawn a sanction in federal court in South Carolina: in a bankruptcy matter, extra ethics CLE (including at least two hours on AI) for breaching Rule 9011.

If you appear before the Workers' Compensation Commission, its interim AI policy applies to you directly, including a signed AI-use statement for commissioner-requested memoranda of law and a duty to verify AI-generated authority.

No South Carolina Bar ethics opinion on AI, and no court-wide disclosure rule for filings, was found (the bankruptcy court in Richburg also said in August 2025 that the SC Bar had issued none); ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point the Commission names.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtVaries by court

  Court disclosure: depends. No general rule found in South Carolina state or federal courts; the Workers' Compensation Commission requires a signed statement on whether AI was used for memoranda of law a commissioner requests. Check individual judges' orders. Client disclosure/consent: depends. No general rule found; the Commission's policy (for matters before it) requires client communication when AI use affects significant decisions or on client request.

  Workers' Compensation Commission Advisory and Interim Policy on Generative AI
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.