The State Bar of Michigan has not issued any formal ethics opinion or guidance on lawyers using artificial intelligence. Michigan attorneys operate under the same Model Rules framework as every other state, but without AI-specific interpretation from their bar authority.
This silence creates real risk. As neighboring states like Illinois and Minnesota issue formal guidance, Michigan lawyers lack a clear roadmap for AI adoption. The general ethics obligations under Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct still apply -- competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), and supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) -- but attorneys must interpret these rules without state-specific direction.
What the Bar Says
Nothing. The State Bar of Michigan has issued no formal opinion, advisory guidance, or task force report on AI use by lawyers. There is no pending AI ethics committee or public timeline for issuing guidance. Michigan attorneys must rely on existing ethics rules and look to other jurisdictions for interpretive direction.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct mirror the ABA Model Rules, including the technology competence amendment to Rule 1.1 Comment 8. This means Michigan lawyers already have a duty to understand the technology they use -- including AI tools -- even without a dedicated opinion saying so.
Billing Implications
Michigan has issued no guidance on billing for AI-assisted work. The default framework is Rule 1.5 (Reasonable Fees). Under this rule, attorneys cannot bill clients at their hourly rate for work performed primarily by an AI tool.
Look at what states with formal opinions have decided: Arizona says attorneys may not bill AI time at human rates. Colorado requires transparency on AI costs. Michigan lawyers should assume similar principles apply. Billing a client $400/hour for a memo that ChatGPT drafted in 30 seconds is a fee dispute waiting to happen.
Confidentiality Rules
Michigan's Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. No AI-specific guidance exists, but the rule's plain language covers AI use. Entering client data into a consumer AI tool with no data protection agreement likely violates this obligation.
Practical steps Michigan lawyers should take now: review AI vendor terms of service for data retention and training policies, use enterprise-tier AI tools with Business Associate Agreements or equivalent data protection terms, and never input client-identifying information into free AI chatbots.
What's Still Unclear
Everything AI-specific. Michigan has not addressed whether AI-generated work product requires disclosure to clients or courts. There is no guidance on whether AI tools constitute "technology" under the competence duty or how supervision obligations apply when associates use AI. There is no position on whether AI vendor relationships create third-party confidentiality concerns.
Michigan courts have not issued local rules requiring AI disclosure in filings, unlike courts in New York and Texas. This could change quickly -- federal courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan could adopt disclosure requirements independently of the state bar.
The Bottom Line: Michigan has no AI ethics guidance -- lawyers must self-regulate using existing rules while watching neighboring states for directional signals.
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.