Using generative AI in Missouri legal | AI Law Framework
Checklist · AI decision systems
Using generative AI in Missouri legal practice: ethics checklist
Checklist of what Missouri's own sources say about lawyers using generative AI: Informal Opinions 2024-11 and 2026-09 on competence, confidentiality, informed consent, supervision, fees and court rules, plus local AI disclosure rules as recorded in this library's Missouri record.
MaintainedWe keep this page up to date.Law stated as at
Kind
Checklist Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
Version
1
Where it applies
United States, Missouri
AI use
Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
Source
Written for this library
Status
Maintained. Checked on 8 November 2026 against the 2 authorities it cites, for United States and Missouri.
When to use it
Use when a Missouri lawyer or firm sets up, audits or trains staff on generative AI use, or adopts AI deposition software. The main sources are two informal opinions of the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel, which are advisory. Pair it with the firm's AI policy, vendor checks and engagement letter.
How to use this precedent
Check that it fits the matter: read “When to use it” and the places it applies to.
Log in to read the full text. It is free.
Adapt it to the matter, filling in each placeholder shown in [square brackets].
Use AI only as far as the Yellow level allows. “How AI may be used” says what AI may and must not do.
Before it goes out, a lawyer checks it against current law and each point under “The lawyer checks”.
How AI may be used
A tool may list the firm's AI tools and match them to each point; a lawyer confirms the Missouri sources are current, decides whether each point is met and signs off.
AI may
List the firm's AI tools and the matters they are used on, from the firm's own register
Match each tool to the checklist points and flag points with no control
Draft staff reminders that quote the named Missouri sources accurately
AI must not
Must not mark a point as met, a source as current or a citation as checked
Must not decide whether a tool's terms protect confidential client information
Must not add duties that the named sources do not state
Must not treat this checklist as a substitute for the named sources or for a later opinion, rule or order
The lawyer checks
The current version of each named Missouri source has been confirmed
The forum's local rules, standing orders and the assigned judge's orders have been checked for AI requirements
Federal court rules and orders have been checked separately for any federal matter
Each AI tool's terms of use and privacy policy have been read for access to inputs, retention and training use
Client consent has been recorded before any confidential client information goes into an AI tool, as Opinion 2026-09 says