Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

No. This instrument is no longer in force (superseded). While it was in force it applied to the issuing body's own personnel or adjudicators, not to attorney filings; any disclosure or verification it mentioned was a duty of its own addressees.

Idaho OAH: Policy No. 23-1: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Idaho Office of Administrativ…

Q: What did Idaho OAH's AI court order require while it was in force?

This order is no longer in force (superseded) and does not state current filing practice. While it was operative it required: Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, were prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and chatbots (including but not limited to ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer. The prohibition applied to preliminary orders, recommended final orders, and proposed final orders.

Adopted by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer · State of Idaho, Office of Administrative Hearings

superseded

Verified October 1, 2026

Citation: Policy No. 23-1: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings)
Order date: January 12, 2023

Status and former requirement

No longer in force (superseded); this order does not state current filing practice. While it was operative it required: Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, were prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and chatbots (including but not limited to ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer.

Does not apply to attorney filings. This instrument bound the issuing body's own personnel or adjudicators while it was in force. It is tracked for completeness and imposes no obligation on attorneys.

This order is no longer in force (superseded). It does not state current filing practice. The requirements below are retained as a record of what applied while the order was operative, because filings made during that period are still judged against it. Do not build a filing workflow from this page.

What the order required while in force

Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, were prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and chatbots (including but not limited to ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer.
The prohibition applied to preliminary orders, recommended final orders, and proposed final orders.
Authority cited: Idaho Code § 67-5201(21)(b)(i) and (iii); § 67-5282(1)(f), (g), and (h).
The policy was interim by its terms, in effect until the Code of Conduct was updated to address AI use in hearing officer drafting.

Practice areas: state administrative

No longer in force

Policy 23-1 was replaced on September 24, 2025, when Bryan Nickels, the OAH’s chief (“Chief Nickels” in the OAH announcement), issued Policy 25-1, the Guidelines for Administrative Law Judges Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence. The OAH’s announcement states that the guidelines replace “existing OAH Policies 23-1 and 23-12.” The new guidelines keep the ban on AI in drafting orders and extend it to legal research and to analysis of evidence and party submissions.

What the policy required

Idaho OAH Policy No. 23-1, dated and effective January 12, 2023, prohibited AI use by hearing officers in the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings. It applied internally: hearing officers, whether in-house staff or contract, could not use AI or chatbots (ChatGPT specifically named) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing the orders they issued, including preliminary orders, recommended final orders, and proposed final orders.

The policy imposed no duties on litigants or counsel appearing before the OAH. It was interim by its terms, to remain in force until the Code of Conduct was updated to address AI use in hearing-officer drafting.

Quotable language

“Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, are prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and/or chatbots (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer, including, but not limited to, preliminary orders, recommended final orders, and/or proposed final orders.”

“This policy is interim in nature, until such time as the Code of Conduct is updated to address the use of artificial intelligence in such drafting.”

Primary sources

How this order changed

Dated record of this order's own lifecycle. Where it was amended or withdrawn, the badge shows its standing after that step.

Jan 12, 2023active
Policy No. 23-1 issued and effective, prohibiting hearing officers from using AI to prepare orders on an interim basis. source
Sep 24, 2025superseded
Bryan Nickels, the OAH's chief ('Chief Nickels' in the OAH announcement), issued Policy 25-1, the Guidelines for Administrative Law Judges Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence, 'replacing existing OAH Policies 23-1 and 23-12.' source