KRC Consulting collected these Kansas and Missouri sources on lawyers' use of AI while researching AI for small law firms. They cover the federal courts on both sides of the state line, one Jackson County division and Missouri ethics guidance. They do not cover Kansas state courts or Kansas ethics guidance. This page gives no legal or ethics advice.
District of Kansas
Standing Order 26-01, issued January 28, 2026, states that "Litigants are responsible for the content of their own filings." If the court has reason to believe a litigant has not reviewed and verified a filing's accuracy, possible sanctions include striking the filing, fines, disciplinary referral, disqualification, filing restrictions and dismissal. In any matter before it, the court may also require a sworn statement disclosing how AI was used (District of Kansas Standing Order 26-01).
In Lexos Media IP v. Overstock.com (District of Kansas, February 2, 2026), the court found that "all five Lexos attorneys violated Rule 11(b)," the federal rule on signing court filings. The filings they signed included fabricated and misrepresented legal authority. Sanctions:
- The lawyer who used ChatGPT for legal research was fined $5,000 and lost permission to appear in the case as an out-of-state lawyer (pro hac vice).
- Two lawyers who signed the filings were fined $3,000 each.
- Local counsel who did not cite-check was fined $1,000.
- A fifth lawyer received an admonition only.
Jackson County, Missouri
Division 25 of the 16th Judicial Circuit has a standing order on AI, updated September 1, 2026. When a filing cites cases that do not exist, the order says the filing "will be stricken" and a hearing on attorneys' fees follows. The order applies in one judge's division, so check the assigned judge (16th Judicial Circuit, Division 25).
The order cites Kruse v. Karlen (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2024). In that case a self-represented appellant filed a brief in which only two of twenty-four citations were genuine, and the court ordered $10,000 in damages for a frivolous appeal (Kruse v. Karlen opinion).
Missouri ethics guidance and the Western District of Missouri
A Missouri Bar article discussing Missouri's informal ethics guidance on AI (Informal Opinion 2024-11) says lawyers "may not rely blindly on AI-generated content." The article also says Missouri has no formal rule requiring lawyers to certify their use of AI, and that signing a pleading already certifies that cited authority exists (Missouri Bar, 2026).
The Western District of Missouri's rules page lists no district-wide AI rule (rules page). Individual judges may have their own standing orders, so check the assigned judge's page.
What to do
Verify every citation and quotation against the source before anyone signs. As a firm practice, have a named person do the check and record it. Check the assigned judge's standing order. The main article has a sample AI policy outline.
Sources
- District of Kansas Standing Order 26-01: https://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf
- Lexos Media IP v. Overstock.com, D. Kan., Feb. 2, 2026, sanctions order (copy filed as an exhibit in S.D. Fla.): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.693706/gov.uscourts.flsd.693706.64.1.pdf
- 16th Judicial Circuit, Division 25 standing order: https://www.16thcircuit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/Judges/Docs/div-25/standing-order-ai-final.pdf
- Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43: https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/02/13/molly_kruse_v._jonathan_r._karlen.pdf
- The Missouri Bar, AI and the legal profession: https://news.mobar.org/artificial-intelligence-and-the-legal-profession-practical-and-ethical-considerations-in-the-new-technological-era/
- Western District of Missouri rules page: https://www.mow.uscourts.gov/district/rules
Book an AI audit
KRC Consulting runs an AI audit built on interviews with a firm's people. It produces a ranked list of AI opportunities and a roadmap, presented to the firm's leadership. Schedule a call or write to hello@krc.consulting.