Michigan

informal

Summary

Michigan has detailed non-binding AI FAQs (updated November 2024 / February 2025), a judicial ethics opinion on AI competence for judges (JI-155), a Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup report (June 2025), and the first confirmed Michigan federal AI sanctions case (Seither & Cherry, E.D. Mich., October 2024). No formal numbered RI opinion for practicing attorneys has been issued. A proposed E.D. Mich. AI disclosure rule (December 2023) was not adopted.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.3
Rule 1.4
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 2.1
Rule 3.3
Rule 4.1
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3
Rule 7.1
Rule 8.4

Carrier Implications

FRCP 11 sanctions are generally not covered by standard malpractice policies. RI-381's vendor due diligence standard creates documented evidence cyber insurers may rely on. Standard LPL policies may not explicitly cover AI-related sanctions or errors; firms should review for AI-specific exclusions or sublimits annually.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Michigan’s State Bar AI FAQs (published November 18, 2024; fees section updated February 11, 2025) are the operative practice guidance but are explicitly non-binding. They cover competence, diligence, confidentiality (cross-referencing RI-381’s vendor due diligence standard), client disclosure, fees (no padding hours, AI subscriptions are firm overhead), supervision, and candor. RI-381 (February 21, 2020), the formal cybersecurity opinion, supplies the binding vendor due diligence standard cited in the AI FAQs. JI-155 (November 2023) addresses judicial AI competence and notes technology competence “is an ethical responsibility for all attorneys in Michigan.”

The first confirmed Michigan federal AI sanctions case is Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC (E.D. Mich., Judge F. Kay Behm, October 2024), where counsel was sanctioned under FRCP 11 for AI-generated citations with real case names but fabricated quotations. A proposed E.D. Mich. Local Rule 5.1(a)(4) (December 2023) requiring AI disclosure was not adopted; FRCP 11 independently requires accuracy certification.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Michigan firm: The AI FAQs are the operative guidance but are explicitly non-binding. The Seither sanctions case establishes that Rule 11 exposure for AI hallucinations is live in E.D. Mich. The cyber/vendor diligence standard is anchored in the binding RI-381 opinion.

Last verified: April 23, 2026