Ill. (Human Rights Commission): Standing Order for All Cases Filed Before the ALS, AI Pro…
Brian Weinthal, Chief Administrative Law Judge · Illinois Human Rights Commission, Administrative Law Section
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order for All Cases Filed Before the ALS, AI Provision (Chief ALJ Brian Weinthal, IL HRC)
- Order date
- August 1, 2023
Status and scope
Applies to parties and pro se filers, not to attorney filings, and imposes no obligation on attorneys. It provides: 'A party to an ALS case is not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence ("AI") to compose legal pleadings.' (standing order version 08/01/2025, for cases filed on or after August 1, 2025)
What the instrument requires of its addressees
- 'A party to an ALS case is not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence ("AI") to compose legal pleadings.' (standing order version 08/01/2025, for cases filed on or after August 1, 2025)
- 'Parties who use AI to prepare legal pleadings are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and validity of those submissions.'
- Parties 'do not have to disclose their use of AI.'
- Attorneys and self-represented parties are encouraged to remain vigilant and informed about the limitations of AI, such as potential hallucinations and embedded biases.
- Where the assigned administrative law judge determines that fabricated or deceptive information has been included in a filing as the result of the use of generative AI, the judge may impose an appropriate sanction.
- The 2023 version (cases filed from August 1, 2023) was a warning: a party was 'strongly cautioned against using generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) to compose legal pleadings' and would 'be held singularly responsible for verifying the content and veracity of any pleading.'
Practice areas: state administrative, state civil rights
What the rule currently requires
The Illinois Human Rights Commission Administrative Law Section standing order (version 08/01/2025, for cases filed on or after August 1, 2025) takes a permissive posture. “A party to an ALS case is not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) to compose legal pleadings,” and parties “do not have to disclose their use of AI.” Parties who use AI “are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and validity of those submissions,” and the order encourages attorneys and self-represented parties to stay informed about AI failure modes (hallucinations and embedded biases). Where the assigned administrative law judge determines that fabricated or deceptive information reached a filing through generative AI, the judge may impose an appropriate sanction.
For Illinois practitioners with matters before the IHRC, AI-assisted drafting is permitted without disclosure, and the filer answers for accuracy. The framing aligns with the Rule 11 accountability approach used by some federal judges (Hodge, Johnston) rather than the disclose-and-certify template used by others.
Rule history
The original standing order (version 08/01/2023, for cases filed on or after August 1, 2023) was titled a warning: a party was “strongly cautioned against using generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) to compose legal pleadings” and would “be held singularly responsible for verifying the content and veracity of any pleading.” The August 1, 2025 revision keeps the accuracy responsibility and the sanction but replaces the warning with express permission and states that parties “do not have to disclose” AI use. Each version governs cases by filing date.
Quotable language (current 2025 version)
“A party to an ALS case is not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) to compose legal pleadings.”
“Parties who use AI to prepare legal pleadings are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and validity of those submissions.”
Primary source (current revision)
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.
- activeStanding Order (version 08/01/2023), Section 17 'Warning Against the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence': parties strongly cautioned against generative AI, singularly responsible for verifying pleadings, and subject to sanctions for AI-caused inaccuracies. No disclosure requirement. source
- amendedRevised Standing Order (version 08/01/2025) for cases filed on or after August 1, 2025: Section 17 retitled 'Policy Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence'; use not prohibited, no disclosure required, accuracy responsibility and sanctions retained. source