Adoption Notice: MAR No. 2026-169.2
MAR Notice No. 2026-169.2
Proposed Amendment and Repeal of Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) Rules
- Comments were received; no changes made (adopted as proposed)
- Effective Date: September 26, 2026
Notice of Adoption
MAR Notice No. 2026-169.2
Summary
Amendment and Repeal of Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) Rules
Previous Notice(s) and Hearing Information
On August 7, 2026, the Department of Revenue (department) published MAR Notice No. 2026-169.1 pertaining to the public hearing on the proposed rulemaking in the 2026 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 15.
On August 31, 2026, the department held a public hearing to consider the proposals. Pepper Petersen of Aristotle Agentic appeared and provided verbal testimony. The department did not receive any written comments.
Final Rulemaking Action – Effective September 26, 2026
Amend as Proposed
The agency has amended the following rules as proposed:
- 42.2.613 Definitions
- 42.2.614 Purpose
- 42.2.615 Referrals to the ODR
- 42.2.616 Formality of Procedures
- 42.2.617 Initial Conferences
- 42.2.618 Mediation Procedures
- 42.2.619 Hearing Procedures
- 42.2.621 Final Agency Decision and Appeal
Repeal as Proposed
The agency has repealed the following rules as proposed:
- 42.2.620 Information Offered in Hearings
Statement of Reasons
The agency has considered the comments and testimony received. A summary of the comments received, and the agency’s responses are as follows:
Comment 1: Mr. Petersen provided extensive commentary at the public hearing objecting to the department’s proposed adoption of a definition for artificial intelligence (AI) and the requirement that parties to a dispute before the ODR – or their representatives – must disclose to the ODR if they introduce evidence or make any formal filing created using AI.
Mr. Petersen contended that the department and/or the ODR are trying to limit civic engagement in governmental processes including commenting on the promulgation of administrative rules, testifying before the legislature, and appearing pro se before tribunals.
Mr. Petersen presented an opinion that the department and/or the ODR would be hard pressed to accept any submitted materials under the rule because AI has permeated modern culture to the extent that the use of any computer in either the research or the drafting of materials constitutes using AI. Mr. Petersen requested withdrawal of the proposal and also disclosed that his remarks during the hearing were even prepared using AI.
Response 1: The department understands Mr. Petersen’s comments but they misapprehend the plain language of the rule.
The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512 on July 29, 2024, which provided the legal profession's most comprehensive framework for the ethical use of generative AI tools. The opinion applies the existing ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) to AI use. (See, e.g. Model Rule 1.1 (obligates lawyers to provide competent representation to clients and requires lawyers to exercise the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation,” as well as to understand “the benefits and risks associated” with the technologies used to deliver legal services to clients); and Model Rule 3.3 (a lawyer shall not knowingly make false statements to a tribunal, fail to correct false statements of material fact or law, or fail to disclose directly adverse controlling authority). These obligations are not affected by the source of the information—whether AI-generated or otherwise.
While the Montana Supreme Court has not issued a statewide order governing attorney use of AI in court filings yet, as of this notice, two of Montana's 22 judicial districts have adopted AI-specific local rules and a federal district court judge for Montana has a standing order regarding AI. The Montana Thirteenth Judicial District (Yellowstone County, Billings) Local Rule 35, effective January 1, 2026, provides:
"If an attorney for a party or a self-represented party has used generative Artificial Intelligence (hereafter 'AI') in the preparation of any document filed with the 13th Judicial District Court, they MUST identify the type of AI used and CERTIFY every citation to the law or record in the filing has been verified as accurate." (emphasis in original).
So, the ODR’s adoption of AI standards for evidence and document filing is not only consistent with all current legal standards but is a substantially lesser requirement than what the Thirteenth Judicial District adopted. And given the rapidly evolving landscape of AI in the legal world, the ODR opted for a broader definition that does not confine AI descriptors to generative, iterative, or other–to lessen future edits to the definition as the technology evolves.
To address Mr. Petersen’s opinion that requiring the disclosure of AI-prepared documents will prejudice a party, the department notes that the ODR, like most court jurisdictions, follows the well-established principle that pro se litigants generally receive procedural leniency in how their pleadings are construed, but they remain bound by the same substantive law and, generally, the same procedural rules as represented parties. The department also contends that a party’s duty to the tribunal and the opposing side is to assert truth and accuracy in their evidence and filings to enable the opposition’s right to rebut and/or present their own evidence so that the tribunal may ultimately decide who is the prevailing party. Like in the Model Rules, these obligations should not be affected by the source of the information—whether AI-generated or otherwise.
Based on this response and for the reasons stated, the department declines to make any changes to the rulemaking from its proposal.
Contact
Todd Olson, Rule Reviewer - Department of Revenue, Legal Services Office
Rule Reviewer
Todd Olson
Approval
Brendan Beatty, Director of Revenue
Tags: Adoption Notice and Office of Dispute Resolution