The South Carolina Bar has not issued any formal opinion, advisory guidance, or task force report on attorneys' use of artificial intelligence. South Carolina joins the majority of southeastern states that have not yet addressed AI-specific ethics obligations, leaving its approximately 13,000 active attorneys without a state-specific framework.
The absence of guidance is particularly notable given South Carolina's active federal court docket. The U.S. District Courts for the District of South Carolina and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals may adopt AI-related requirements before the state bar acts. Attorneys handling federal litigation should monitor court-specific developments while building internal AI policies based on existing ethics rules and guidance from states that have acted.
What the Bar Says
Nothing AI-specific. The South Carolina Bar has not published any formal opinion, informal guidance, CLE advisory, or task force report on AI use in legal practice.
South Carolina's Rules of Professional Conduct are based on the ABA Model Rules. Rule 1.1 (competence) includes the duty to stay current with technology. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) requires reasonable measures to protect client information. Rule 5.3 (supervision) applies to non-lawyer assistance, which multiple states have interpreted to include AI tools. These rules govern AI use by default.
Billing Implications
No AI-specific billing guidance exists. Rule 1.5 requires reasonable fees, and South Carolina has not interpreted this rule in the context of AI-assisted work.
The Fourth Circuit includes North Carolina and Virginia, both of which have issued formal AI guidance with billing components. South Carolina firms competing with North Carolina and Virginia firms face implicit market pressure to adopt similar billing transparency for AI-assisted work.
Confidentiality Rules
No AI-specific confidentiality guidance. Rule 1.6 applies generally, requiring attorneys to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information.
Without state-specific guidance, South Carolina attorneys should treat AI vendor evaluation the same as any technology vendor assessment. Review data handling terms, confirm data is not used for model training, ensure adequate security measures, and consider whether client consent is needed before using AI tools on specific matters.
What's Still Unclear
All AI-specific ethics questions remain open: disclosure requirements, billing methodology, vendor vetting standards, AI output verification duties, and supervision protocols. The South Carolina Supreme Court has not issued any AI-related orders for state courts.
South Carolina's bar has historically been measured in issuing ethics opinions. But as federal courts and neighboring states establish AI requirements, the pressure to act increases. Attorneys should not rely on the bar's silence as a shield — disciplinary authorities can apply existing rules to AI conduct without new opinions.
The Bottom Line: South Carolina has no AI-specific ethics guidance — attorneys must apply general Rules 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, and 5.3, and should look to neighboring North Carolina and Virginia for practical standards.
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.