N.D. Ill.: Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Iain D. Johnston, N.D. Ill.)

What the order requires

Judge Johnston’s standing order takes a Rule-11/26(g)-anchored approach. It does not require a separate disclosure declaration or AI certification. Instead, it reminds counsel and pro se litigants that existing Rule 11(b), Rule 26(g), and other relevant ethical rules apply to AI-prepared filings. The verification obligation is anchored in Rule 11’s reasonable-inquiry duty rather than a chambers-specific mechanism.

Johnston’s order parallels Judge Hodge’s E.D. Pa. order and Judge Robinson’s S.D. Cal. order in framing AI use as a Rule 11 problem rather than a disclosure problem. The doctrinal point is that fabricated AI citations violate Rule 11 even absent an AI-specific rule, because the verification obligation is the operative duty regardless of tooling.

The order references the Grossman / Grimm / Brown article in Judicature (2023), which is the canonical academic discussion of AI disclosure regimes; the citation is unusual for a chambers standing order and signals that Johnston tracked the academic debate when crafting his rule.

Continued enforcement

Johnston cited this standing order in Halpern v. FRB of N.Y. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2025), reinforcing that the rule remains in active operation as a Rule 11 framing for AI-fabrication conduct.

Quotable language

“Anyone, counsel and unrepresented parties alike, using AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule, including any applicable ethical rule.”

Primary source

Judge Johnston’s Case Management Procedures (AI Standing Order), ilnd.uscourts.gov