Does Michigan require attorneys to disclose AI use in state court filings? No

Does Michigan require attorneys to disclose AI use in state court filings? No. Michigan has no state court AI disclosure rule, and none is pending. The state is in study mode. What makes Michigan notable is the federal side: the Eastern District of Michigan (EDMI) has proposed Local Rule 5.1(a)(4), which would formalize AI disclosure requirements for federal filings in Detroit and surrounding counties. That proposed federal rule is influencing how Michigan attorneys think about AI governance — even in state court.

For managing partners at Michigan firms, the EDMI proposal is the leading indicator. Michigan state courts will likely reference federal developments when they eventually address AI. Build to the EDMI standard now and you'll be ready for both systems.

EDMI's Proposed Local Rule 5.1(a)(4): The Federal Signal

The Eastern District of Michigan has proposed Local Rule 5.1(a)(4), which would require attorneys to disclose AI use in federal filings. The proposed rule addresses AI-assisted research, drafting, and document preparation. If adopted, it would make EDMI one of the first federal districts to codify AI disclosure in its local rules — moving beyond individual judge standing orders to a district-wide requirement. The rule's specifics include disclosure of AI tool usage and certification that AI-generated content has been verified for accuracy. For Michigan attorneys, this proposed federal rule is the clearest signal of where both federal and state AI policy is headed.

Michigan State Courts: Studying but Not Acting

Michigan's state judiciary — the Michigan Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Circuit Courts across 57 circuits — has no AI disclosure requirement. The State Bar of Michigan has discussed AI ethics but hasn't issued formal guidance specific to generative AI in litigation. No task force, committee, or working group has been publicly announced to study AI disclosure rules for state courts. Michigan's approach has been to observe federal developments and other states' actions before moving. That's typical for Michigan's judicial culture — deliberate, precedent-watching, and reluctant to be first.

Penalties for AI Misuse Under Michigan's Existing Framework

Michigan has no AI-specific penalties. Attorney misconduct involving AI is governed by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. MRPC 1.1 (Competence) requires understanding AI tool limitations. MRPC 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) prohibits fabricated citations and false representations. MRPC 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants) extends supervisory duties to AI tools. The Attorney Grievance Commission handles disciplinary complaints, and AI-related misconduct would be processed under these existing rules. Michigan Court Rule 1.109 (Court Records) and MCR 2.114 (Signatures and Verification) already require attorneys to certify that filings have a factual and legal basis — AI-generated or not.

How Michigan's Federal and State AI Landscapes Compare

The gap between Michigan's federal and state courts on AI policy is significant. EDMI's proposed Local Rule 5.1(a)(4) would create a formal, district-wide disclosure framework. The Western District of Michigan (WDMI) in Grand Rapids has individual judges who've addressed AI through standing orders. Michigan state courts have done neither — no proposed rules, no standing orders, no formal guidance. For attorneys practicing in both systems, this means federal filings in Michigan may soon require AI certification while state filings in the same county's circuit court require nothing. That asymmetry won't last forever, but it's the reality today.

What Michigan Firms Should Do Now

Track the EDMI proposal and build your protocol around it. First, monitor Local Rule 5.1(a)(4) through the EDMI public comment process — the final rule will likely set the compliance benchmark for all Michigan practice. Second, implement citation verification for every filing, state and federal. Michigan court rules already require that filings have a legal basis — MCR 2.114 doesn't care whether bad citations came from AI or sloppy research. Third, establish AI usage documentation for your firm — track which tools are used, by whom, and on which matters. Fourth, watch for individual circuit court judges issuing their own AI orders — Michigan's 57 circuits operate with significant procedural independence. Fifth, train associates and staff that the absence of a state court rule doesn't mean the absence of obligations — competence and candor rules apply regardless.

The Bottom Line: Michigan has no state court AI disclosure rule, but EDMI's proposed Local Rule 5.1(a)(4) signals where federal — and eventually state — requirements are heading. Existing ethics rules and court rules already require citation accuracy. Build to the EDMI standard now.