Toppe Consulting – Your Source for Digital News & Trends in the Legal Industry
Artificial intelligence has arrived in South Carolina courtrooms and law offices, bringing both efficiency gains and serious compliance risks that attorneys cannot ignore. On March 25, 2025, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, establishing clear boundaries for how judicial employees may use these powerful tools. While the policy directly regulates judges and court staff, it sends an unmistakable message to practicing attorneys: responsible AI use requires human oversight, verification of all outputs, and strict adherence to ethical obligations.
The policy emerged after high-profile incidents nationwide where attorneys submitted court filings citing nonexistent cases generated by artificial intelligence. These embarrassing failures resulted in sanctions, damaged reputations, and heightened scrutiny of AI use across the legal profession. South Carolina’s approach acknowledges both AI’s potential benefits and its serious limitations, requiring that all judicial employees treat AI-generated content with appropriate skepticism and never rely on it as a substitute for professional judgment.
Understanding South Carolina’s AI Requirements
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s interim policy applies specifically to justices, judges, clerks, attorneys working within the judiciary, law clerks, interns, information technology staff, and administrative employees funded by state or local sources. However, the policy also reminds all parties appearing before South Carolina courts that existing rules regarding client confidentiality and professional responsibility remain fully applicable when using artificial intelligence tools.
Judicial employees may only use generative AI tools formally approved by the Supreme Court or Court Administration. This restriction ensures that the judiciary maintains control over which platforms access sensitive case information and court systems. The policy explicitly prohibits using AI to draft memoranda, orders, opinions, or other documents without direct human oversight and approval. Any content from generative AI tools cannot be used verbatim and must never be assumed truthful, reliable, or accurate.
Perhaps most critically, the policy establishes that AI tools serve only to assist and cannot substitute for judicial, legal, or professional expertise. This principle extends beyond the courtroom to every attorney practicing in South Carolina. Lawyers who appear before state courts must recognize that judges expect verification of all AI-generated content, including legal research, case citations, and argument construction.
Ethical Obligations for South Carolina Attorneys
While South Carolina’s AI policy does not directly regulate private practitioners, attorneys face binding ethical duties that make compliance essential. The competence requirement under professional conduct rules obligates lawyers to understand technology risks associated with their practice. This duty expanded significantly with AI’s emergence because these tools can generate convincing but entirely fabricated legal analysis.
The American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512 in July 2024, providing comprehensive guidance on generative AI use in legal practice. The opinion emphasizes that attorneys must maintain reasonable understanding of AI capabilities and limitations, though they need not become technical experts. Lawyers can rely on expert guidance when necessary, but cannot delegate their professional responsibility for verifying outputs.
Client confidentiality presents another major ethical concern. When attorneys input case information into AI platforms, that data may be stored on external servers, used to train future models, or potentially accessed by unauthorized parties. South Carolina lawyers must carefully evaluate privacy policies and terms of service before using any AI tool with client information. Many general-purpose AI platforms explicitly state that user inputs may be used for model training, creating confidentiality risks that violate professional conduct rules.
The duty of candor to tribunals requires attorneys to verify accuracy of all AI-generated legal research before submission. Courts nationwide have sanctioned lawyers who filed briefs citing nonexistent cases produced by AI tools. These incidents typically occur when attorneys fail to independently verify citations, relying instead on AI’s authoritative presentation of fabricated information. South Carolina judges expect counsel to personally confirm that cited cases exist, state the propositions attributed to them, and remain good law.
Implementing AI Compliance at Your Firm
Small and solo practitioners can establish AI compliance without overwhelming resources or technical expertise. Start by creating clear firm policies governing AI use. These policies should identify which tools are approved for different tasks, specify what information may and may not be input, and require verification procedures for all AI-generated content.
Training represents your most important compliance investment. All attorneys and staff who might use AI tools need education on both practical use and ethical obligations. Training should cover common AI failures like hallucinations (generating false information), the importance of independent verification, and confidentiality risks. Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence initiative provides valuable resources for understanding AI governance that firms can adapt for their training programs.
Document your verification process for AI-generated work. When using AI for legal research, require attorneys to personally review each cited case in its original source. For document drafting, mandate that supervising attorneys review and revise AI outputs rather than using them verbatim. This documentation protects your firm if questions later arise about your due diligence.
Evaluate confidentiality risks before adopting any AI tool. Read privacy policies carefully and understand what happens to information you input. Prefer AI tools designed specifically for legal practice that include appropriate confidentiality protections over general consumer platforms. Consider whether your malpractice insurance covers AI-related claims and whether additional cyber liability coverage is necessary.
Establish supervisory procedures for AI use. Partners and managing attorneys should regularly review how associates and staff employ these tools. Implement matter-level logging that tracks which AI platforms were used, what tasks they performed, and who verified the outputs. This oversight ensures compliance and identifies training needs before problems occur.
The Future of AI Regulation in South Carolina
The Supreme Court’s interim policy signals that additional guidance will likely emerge as AI technology evolves and more South Carolina attorneys adopt these tools. The policy’s temporary nature acknowledges that AI capabilities and risks are changing rapidly, making permanent rules premature. Attorneys should expect refinements addressing specific AI applications, approved platform lists, and potentially mandatory disclosure requirements when AI contributes to court filings.
The South Carolina Bar Association has not yet issued formal ethics opinions on AI use, but the profession is watching closely as other states provide guidance. Florida, New York, California, and Pennsylvania bar associations have published opinions addressing various AI-related ethical issues. South Carolina attorneys should monitor these developments because they often influence future state bar positions.
Law firms that establish AI compliance frameworks now will be well-positioned for future regulatory changes. Rather than scrambling to meet new requirements, firms with existing policies, training programs, and verification procedures can adapt incrementally as guidance evolves. This proactive approach also demonstrates to clients that your firm takes technology risks seriously and maintains appropriate safeguards.
Balancing Innovation with Responsibility
Artificial intelligence offers genuine benefits for legal practice. These tools can accelerate research, generate drafting ideas, summarize lengthy documents, and identify relevant precedents more efficiently than manual methods. However, Cybersecurity Threats Facing South Carolina Law Firms in 2025: A Complete Protection Guide reminds us that technology adoption must never compromise client protection or professional integrity.
The key to responsible AI use lies in maintaining appropriate human oversight. Treat AI as a research assistant that requires supervision rather than an autonomous legal expert. Verify everything, protect client confidentiality, and document your compliance efforts. These practices satisfy both South Carolina’s AI policy expectations and your ethical obligations to clients and courts.
Partner with Toppe Consulting for Compliant Digital Solutions
At Toppe Consulting, we help South Carolina law firms navigate technology challenges while maintaining ethical compliance. Our law firm website development services integrate secure platforms that protect client data and support your practice’s technological advancement. Whether you need guidance on selecting appropriate AI tools, implementing compliance frameworks, or building a secure digital presence that attracts clients, our team understands the unique challenges facing legal practices. Contact us today to discover how we can support your firm’s responsible technology adoption while strengthening your online marketing and client acquisition. Learn more about comprehensive protection in our article on Data Breach Prevention for South Carolina Law Practices: Essential Security Measures.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Toppe Consulting is a digital marketing and web development firm, not a law firm, and we do not have the authority to provide legal counsel. The content presented here represents editorial commentary on trends within the legal technology sector.
About the Author
Jim Toppe is the founder of Toppe Consulting, a digital marketing agency specializing in law firms. He holds a Master of Science in Management from Clemson University and teaches Business Law at Greenville Technical College. Jim also serves as publisher and editor for South Carolina Manufacturing, a digital magazine. His unique background combines legal knowledge with digital marketing expertise to help attorneys grow their practices through compliant, results-driven strategies.
Works Cited
“ABA Issues First Ethics Guidance on a Lawyer’s Use of AI Tools.” American Bar Association, 29 July 2024, www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/. Accessed 21 Oct. 2025.
“Policy.” Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, hai.stanford.edu/policy. Accessed 21 Oct. 2025.
