Missouri's Supreme Court weighed in on AI ethics directly. Informal Opinion 2024-11, released in April 2024 by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee, gives Missouri's 21,800 attorneys specific guidance on competence, confidentiality, and compliance with court orders involving AI.
AI Regulation in Missouri: The Current Landscape
Missouri's AI guidance comes from the top. The Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri released Informal Opinion 2024-11 in April 2024, addressing the ethical use of AI by attorneys. Having guidance from a Supreme Court-affiliated body carries more weight than a state bar publication, even as an 'informal' opinion.
The opinion focuses on three pillars: understanding AI risks and benefits, protecting client confidentiality when using AI platforms, and complying with court orders that implicate AI tool use. That third pillar is worth noting — Missouri explicitly acknowledges that courts are issuing AI-related orders and that lawyers must follow them. This forward-looking position anticipates the expansion of court-level AI rules.
Missouri's regulatory posture is cautious but substantive. With approximately 21,800 attorneys and major legal markets in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield, the state has a diverse legal community that ranges from BigLaw offices to rural solo practitioners. The opinion's measured approach works for this range — it establishes clear principles without imposing requirements that only large firms could implement.
What the Missouri Bar Says About AI
Informal Opinion 2024-11 is Missouri's primary AI guidance document. Its three core directives: lawyers should understand the risks and benefits of implementing AI in their practice; lawyers must carefully assess generative AI platforms to ensure client confidentiality is maintained; and when court orders or rules implicate AI tool use, lawyers must not knowingly disobey those obligations.
The confidentiality assessment requirement is the most practically significant directive. Missouri doesn't just say 'protect confidentiality' — it says attorneys must 'carefully assess generative AI platforms.' This implies a duty to evaluate the tool itself, not just to be careful about what you input. Attorneys should be reviewing terms of service, data retention policies, and training data practices before using a platform for client work.
The court compliance directive is forward-looking and important. As more courts — both state and federal — issue standing orders about AI use, disclosure, and verification, Missouri attorneys have been put on notice that compliance isn't optional. The opinion essentially says: if a court tells you to do something about AI, do it. Knowing disobedience isn't just a strategic risk — it's an ethical violation.
Court Rules and Judicial Guidance
Missouri courts haven't issued standalone AI-specific court rules as of April 2026, but Informal Opinion 2024-11's reference to court orders about AI signals that the Supreme Court anticipates such rules. The opinion preemptively addresses attorney compliance with AI-related court directives.
There are no reported Missouri-specific AI disciplinary cases or sanctions as of April 2026. The existence of Supreme Court-level guidance likely provides sufficient clarity to prevent the most common AI-related missteps.
Practical Implications for Missouri Attorneys
For Missouri attorneys, Opinion 2024-11 creates three concrete obligations. First, you need to understand AI at a competence level — not just know it exists, but understand how it works, where it fails, and what risks it introduces to your practice. This is an ongoing duty, not a one-time box to check.
Second, AI platform assessment is now an ethical obligation. Before using ChatGPT, Claude, CoCounsel, or any other AI tool for client work, you need to evaluate whether the platform protects client confidentiality. Does it retain your inputs? Does it use your data for training? Does it meet your jurisdiction's standard for reasonable confidentiality measures? These questions aren't optional.
Third, stay current on court-level AI requirements. Missouri's opinion explicitly addresses compliance with court orders about AI. As federal courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri adopt AI disclosure rules — and nationally, many already have — Missouri attorneys can't claim ignorance. The Supreme Court has already told you to follow them.
What Attorneys in Missouri Should Do
Start with a platform audit. Review every AI tool your firm currently uses and evaluate its confidentiality protections. Check data retention policies, terms of service regarding input data, and whether the platform offers enterprise-grade privacy features. Document your findings — this documentation is your evidence of 'careful assessment' under Opinion 2024-11.
Create an AI competence plan for your firm. Opinion 2024-11 says lawyers should understand AI risks and benefits. That means regular training, not just a single CLE session. Designate someone at the firm to monitor AI developments and translate them into practical guidance for colleagues. In St. Louis and Kansas City's competitive markets, AI competence is increasingly a differentiator.
Monitor court orders actively. Set up a system — whether it's a Google alert, a legal news feed, or a dedicated person — to track AI-related standing orders and local rules in every jurisdiction where you practice. Missouri's opinion says you can't knowingly disobey these orders. The only way to not 'knowingly' violate them is to know they exist.
The Bottom Line
Missouri's Informal Opinion 2024-11 is concise but carries real weight. Its three pillars — AI competence, platform confidentiality assessment, and court order compliance — give attorneys a clear, manageable framework that works for firms of any size.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.