Madison County, Ill.: Standing Order of Circuit Judge Patrick G. King on Use of Artificia…

What the order requires

Judge Patrick G. King’s standing order, filed November 25, 2025 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit (Madison County, Illinois), governs AI use in civil cases before Judge King. It opens by embracing AI “In accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (January 1, 2025)” and defines AI broadly: any technology that “simulates human intelligence to perform tasks, such as reasoning, learning, or generating text,” including generative tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini and “any tool that synthesizes or analyzes data beyond simple formatting, translation, transcription, or grammar correction.”

The order is organised around four settings, and its duties differ in each.

Filings

Research tools are not barred: “The use of ChatGPT or any other research tool is not prohibited.” But counsel and self-represented litigants “must personally and respectively confirm the accuracy of any content generated by these tools,” and filings prepared with generative AI must be “genuinely and thoroughly reviewed for factual, ethical, and legal accuracy prior to submission.” The order ties this to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137: the signer “remains fully responsible for its content, regardless of whether it was drafted in whole or in part by generative AI,” and the Court “will not accept the excuse that such content was prepared by AI, staff, or others.” Inaccurate AI-generated content, “such as caselaw hallucinations, inappropriate or inaccurate statements of law, and/or ghost citations may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions under the law.” No disclosure of AI use in a filing is required.

Discovery

Discovery carries the order’s most specific obligations:

1. Responsibility. Attorneys “remain fully responsible for the content and accuracy” of written discovery responses whether or not AI assisted.
2. Disclosure. If AI or automated summarization tools were used to answer interrogatories, respond to requests for production, or summarize client records, counsel “must disclose the same to opposing counsel at the time of service,” identifying “the general category of tool used (e.g., ‘AI-powered medical summarization tool’).” The disclosure “shall not waive privilege.”
3. Certification. The attorney “must file a signed certification” of personal review, of verification that the responses are accurate and complete, and that the responses do not rest solely on the AI tool’s output. Appendix 1 supplies a sample form, which also certifies that no confidential or privileged material was entered into an AI system that stores or transmits it externally, except as a protective order or the parties’ agreement permits.
4. Sanctions. Failure to comply, “including reliance on erroneous or incomplete AI-generated discovery responses,” may be sanctioned under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219.

Separately, a party using technology-assisted review to identify documents “must notify opposing counsel in their response that the documents have been identified by use of this technology,” and must disclose the method used upon request when AI or TAR aids document review or written discovery. The order also sets an ESI conference within 14 days of the first production request involving potential ESI, including whether TAR will be used.

Depositions and the courtroom

Attorneys intending to use AI tools during depositions or court proceedings must work through a checklist: confirm the tool does not record or store audio or video; review its terms for data collection and training use; disable microphone, camera, and streaming features “unless explicitly approved by the Court and all parties”; keep confidential, protective-order, and privileged material out of the tool; and “Obtain explicit consent from all parties if any tool used interacts with live deposition testimony or recordings.” Real-time AI tools at trial “shall not be visible or audible to any juror.” Violations may bring sanctions, exclusion of evidence, or waiver of confidentiality protection.

Evidence, experts, and jury selection

“At least ninety (90) days prior to trial,” a party seeking to introduce evidence “enhanced or generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) program” must give notice and disclose it “via affidavit of the attorney or analyst,” covering six items: which exhibit and which portion is AI-affected; the technology, date, method, and algorithm; a certification of review by a competent expert or attorney; documentation of the tool’s reliability; verification that original and processed forms are preserved; and a copy of the original. An opposing party has 30 days to challenge; AI evidence discovered or intended for use after the deadline must be disclosed within 7 days “and may be subject to exclusion.” If the enhanced version is admitted, “the original unenhanced evidence will be admitted together with the enhanced version” unless good cause is shown.

An expert relying on AI must explain the system, its algorithms, its training, whether it is open or closed, how it reached its result, and why it is reliable. Opinions resting on proprietary AI the expert does not own or cannot explain “are likely to be excluded.” Any party using AI “for juror profiling, social media analysis, and/or selection strategy must disclose such use in advance of voir dire.”

Scope

Civil cases before Judge King in Madison County only. Judge Sarah D. Smith of the same court also has an AI standing order for civil cases (September 24, 2025), posted only in part on the Circuit Clerk’s Standing Orders page. For the statewide position, see the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy.

Primary source

Standing Order of Circuit Judge Patrick G. King on Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Civil Cases (Nov. 25, 2025) (PDF), listed on the Madison County Circuit Clerk’s Standing Orders page.