---
title: "South Carolina: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/south-carolina"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-SC"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# South Carolina: AI rules for lawyers
> South Carolina: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/south-carolina
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## 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 court:** Varies 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](https://wcc.sc.gov/sites/wcc/files/Documents/Update.News/FC%20Business%20Meetings/SCWCC%20AI%20Bench%20Order%20Advisory%206.17.2026.pdf)
**Tell the client:** Varies
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## What changed in South Carolina in the last 12 months
- 17 June 2026 · Dated: [Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Full Commission order) and advisory](#ai-rule-jr-us-sc-wcc-interim-genai-policy)
## AI instruments
### Courts and tribunals
#### Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Full Commission order) and advisory
- Type: Court policy
- Issuer: South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
- Date on page: 17 June 2026
- Effective date: 17 June 2026
- Status: 17 June 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://wcc.sc.gov/sites/wcc/files/Documents/Update.News/FC%20Business%20Meetings/SCWCC%20AI%20Bench%20Order%20Advisory%206.17.2026.pdf
Applies to Commission employees, lawyers appearing before the Commission, and parties. Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the technology they use (Rule 1.1 cmt 8), must not delegate professional judgment to AI, must assess a tool's data retention, training and security practices before inputting client information, and must verify any AI-generated authority, assertion, evidence or argument before submitting it. When a commissioner requests a memorandum of law, the submitting party must include a signed statement saying whether AI was used in preparing it.
Key points:
- Disclosure to the tribunal: a signed AI-use statement is required only for memoranda of law requested by a commissioner.
- Client communication about generative AI is required when its use affects significant decisions in the representation or disclosure is otherwise required, and on client request the lawyer must accurately disclose whether and how it was used.
- Fees must be reasonable; a lawyer generally should not bill for time spent learning an AI tool they will regularly use.
- Refers lawyers to ABA Formal Opinion 512 for further guidance.
- Applies to proceedings in the workers' compensation forum only, not to South Carolina courts generally.
- Signed for the Commission by T. Scott Beck, Chairman; stays in effect until further order of the Chairman or the Full Commission.
#### In re Richburg, C/A No. 25-01297-EG, Adv. Pro. No. 25-80037-EG: Order Imposing Non-Monetary Sanctions
- Type: Judgment
- Issuer: United States Bankruptcy Court, District of South Carolina
- Date on page: 27 August 2025
- Effective date: 27 August 2025
- Status: 27 August 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.scb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/Judge%20Gasparini/opn_4431_25-80037_638919027146942631.pdf
Counsel filed a motion for a preliminary injunction citing cases that did not exist; counsel admitted the citations came from generative AI and were not independently verified. The court found a breach of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 and, because the motion had been voluntarily dismissed, imposed a non-monetary sanction: three extra hours of ethics CLE, at least two on the ethical use of AI in legal practice, with a certification to the court by 1 February 2026. The court said the order is meant as a lesson for the bar generally.
Key points:
- Binding only in that court, but a South Carolina federal signal that unverified AI citations breach Rule 9011.
- The court noted it could order disgorgement of fees under 11 U.S.C. 329 and that voluntary dismissal does not always avoid monetary sanctions.
- Cites Rules 5.3 and 5.5 comment 2, Rule 407, SCACR, and other states' ethics opinions on verifying AI output.
- The court observed that the South Carolina Bar had not issued any ethics opinions on the use of AI in legal practice (as at August 2025).
#### Court News: reminder of the Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Type: Court policy
- Issuer: Supreme Court of South Carolina (Court News)
- Date on page: 15 August 2025
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: 2025-08-15; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.sccourts.org/about/court-news/2025-08-15/interim-policy-on-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence/
A Court News post, in response to increasing use of generative AI in the legal system, reminding the Bench, Bar and those who interact with the court system of the Chief Justice's interim policy. It says the policy may be revised as needed and links the policy PDF.
Key points:
- Directed to the Bench, Bar and those who interact with the judicial system.
- Links the policy PDF; the policy's section (d) is the part addressed to lawyers and litigants.
- No new disclosure or certification requirement is stated.
#### Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Appellate Case No. 2025-000043)
- Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order
- Issuer: Supreme Court of South Carolina (Chief Justice)
- Date on page: 25 March 2025
- Effective date: 25 March 2025
- Status: 25 March 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.sccourts.org/media/courtOrders/PDFs/2025-03-25-01.pdf
Binds judicial officers and employees of the South Carolina Judicial Branch: only approved generative AI tools, on approved devices, with direct human oversight of any draft, and no use on confidential court records or privileged material unless expressly authorised. It does not directly regulate lawyers, but section (d) reminds lawyers and litigants that they are responsible for the accuracy of all work product, must be cautious about generative AI output, and must ensure AI use does not compromise client confidentiality or breach Rule 407, SCACR. It contains no filing-disclosure or certification requirement for lawyers.
Key points:
- Applies to all Judicial Officers and Employees of the Judicial Branch, including judges, law clerks, attorneys on staff and volunteers.
- Section (d)(1): lawyers and litigants are reminded they are responsible for the accuracy of all work product; section (d)(2): lawyers must ensure generative AI use does not compromise client confidentiality or otherwise violate Rule 407, SCACR.
- The policy states it does not specifically address lawyers' and litigants' use of generative AI.
- A Court News notice of 15 August 2025 reminded the Bench, Bar and others of the policy and said it may be revised in future.
#### Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Comment [8] on technology
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Date on page: 17 November 2021
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: 2021-11-17; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.sccourts.org/resources/judicial-community/court-rules/appellate/rule-407/rule-11/
Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 says that to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses to provide services to clients or to store or transmit information related to the representation of a client. It applies to generative AI tools a lawyer uses.
Key points:
- Duty is tied to technology the lawyer uses to serve clients or to store or transmit client information.
- Also requires continuing study and education and compliance with CLE requirements.
- The Workers' Compensation Commission policy and the bankruptcy court's Richburg order both lean on the competence and verification duties.
## Sources
- South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission: [Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Full Commission order) and advisory](https://wcc.sc.gov/sites/wcc/files/Documents/Update.News/FC%20Business%20Meetings/SCWCC%20AI%20Bench%20Order%20Advisory%206.17.2026.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- United States Bankruptcy Court, District of South Carolina: [In re Richburg, C/A No. 25-01297-EG, Adv. Pro. No. 25-80037-EG: Order Imposing Non-Monetary Sanctions](https://www.scb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/Judge%20Gasparini/opn_4431_25-80037_638919027146942631.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Supreme Court of South Carolina (Court News): [Court News: reminder of the Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.sccourts.org/about/court-news/2025-08-15/interim-policy-on-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Supreme Court of South Carolina (Chief Justice): [Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Appellate Case No. 2025-000043)](https://www.sccourts.org/media/courtOrders/PDFs/2025-03-25-01.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Supreme Court of South Carolina: [Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Comment 8 on technology](https://www.sccourts.org/resources/judicial-community/court-rules/appellate/rule-407/rule-11/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Supreme Court of South Carolina](https://www.sccourts.org/about/court-news/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [South Carolina Bar](https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [South Carolina General Assembly](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=896&session=126&summary=B) · last checked 31 October 2026
## Key facts
- Kind: State
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0
- AI instruments recorded: 5
*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*