Kaufman Ops

AI settings for a small law firm in Michigan

Checked against the source documents on October 26, 2026

The State Bar of Michigan's AI report tells lawyers to read a tool's contract and terms of service to learn whether client information could be shared or used for training. The settings that answer that are on the main checklist. This page says which ones Michigan points at, and why.

What Michigan has said

State Bar of Michigan, Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup: Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI (SBM AI Report), 2025-06.

  1. Confidentiality. MRPC 1.6: use extreme caution; research the tool, including contract terms and terms of service, to see if confidential information could be shared or used for training (report p. 32). FAQ: do not enter privileged or confidential client information; if you do, client consent under MRPC 1.6(c)(1).
  2. Competence. MRPC 1.1 and its comment on existing and developing technology; duty to understand AI; judgment cannot be delegated to generative AI; review all generated information and cites (report p. 27).
  3. Supervision. MRPC 5.1 and 5.3: supervise people and the tools used, confirming AI work is accurate and does not disclose confidences (report p. 35 area, Duty to Supervise section).
  4. Fees. MRPC 1.5 and RI-150: charge only for time actually spent; 15-minute AI draft billed as 15 minutes; flat fee may be unreasonable if AI cut the work; not using cost-saving AI could arguably make a fee unreasonable (report pp. 30-31).
  5. Disclosure. Client: duty of communication includes discussing the decision to use AI, its benefits and risks; disclosure not always required but driven by MRPC 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 (report pp. 29-30). Court: FAQ says no general duty unless the court asks or a rule or order requires it.
  6. Verification. Lawyer must review all AI-generated information and confirm cites are correct, especially in court filings, under MRPC 3.3 and MCR 1.109(E)(5) (report pp. 27-28, citing Mata v. Avianca).

The line about the tool itself. Yes: read contract terms and terms of service to determine whether confidential information could be shared or used for training; ask vendors what information is relayed, how it is stored, security parameters and access, then relay that to the client for informed consent (report p. 32). Practice management chapter lists vendor questions on model training, prompt use, and data retention policies (report pp. (Report p. 32, Duty of Confidentiality (MRPC 1.6) section)

One line from it: "AI are continuous learning tools as additional data is input" (Report p. 32, Duty of Confidentiality).

The settings that answer it

  1. Use the business plan, not a personal one. On Claude Pro, Claude Max and ChatGPT Plus, training on chats is each user's own setting. On Claude Team, ChatGPT Business and Microsoft 365 Copilot with a work sign-in, business data is not used for training by default. On the checklist
  2. Turn off the training and feedback exceptions an admin can still turn off (Claude feedback, ChatGPT personal accounts that are still in use). On the checklist
  3. Set retention on purpose instead of taking the default. On the checklist
  4. Turn on single sign-on so a lawyer who leaves loses access the same day. On the checklist
  5. Decide on connectors, apps and agents before staff add them. On the checklist
  6. Pick a rule on memory, and teach temporary or incognito chats for one-off matter questions. On the checklist
  7. Put the vendor's written terms on training, retention, subprocessors and breach notice in the file. On the checklist
  8. Write the one-page staff instruction and a note for each new hire. On the checklist
  9. Keep a verification step before anything is filed. That is a procedure, not a setting, and no vendor sells it. On the checklist
  10. Decide what the engagement letter says about AI use and billing. That is yours to write; I only flag that the opinion raises it. On the checklist

Rules around it

Technology competence: Yes. MRPC 1.1, comment (Maintaining Competence), amended by Michigan Supreme Court order of 2019-09-18, effective 2020-01-01;

In motion: SBM AI Report is described as a living document to be updated; no comment deadline. No Michigan Supreme Court ADM file on AI located; February 2026 and June 2026 ADM notices checked (2019-40, 2022-49, 2024-08, 2024-19, 2025-37) are not about AI. source; Barber v Morawa, Mich Ct App No. 374773 (published), sanctions for AI-fabricated authority and referral to Attorney Grievance Commission; first published Michigan appellate opinion on the issue. 2026-06-17 source

What this page is not

This is a tech settings page, not legal advice. The state document above is the ethics half and it is yours to read and decide on. I am not a lawyer. I link the source so you can check me.

Send me one screenshot

Crop out client names, send me a screenshot of your Claude, ChatGPT or Microsoft 365 admin settings page, and I'll write back what I'd change. Free. I never need a login.

If you want this kept current for your firm, that is the monthly desk: I watch these settings as the vendors change them and as your state changes its guidance, answer staff questions in writing, usually within one business day, and write up setup notes for each new hire. $500 a month, cancel any month.

Email nick@kaufmanops.com

Who wrote this

Nick Kaufman

I'm Nick Kaufman. I've spent six years in customer-facing technical support for SaaS, payments and CRM software, including three years at Tier 2 on a CRM built for financial advisors, whose firms work under SEC and FINRA rules. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice. I set up software so it does what the people responsible for it decided it should do.

Other states: the full list.