Illinois: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Illinois firm: The Illinois Supreme Court’s AI Policy (effective January 1, 2025) is the operative governance framework. Chief Justice Theis explicitly stated that existing Rules of Professional Conduct are “sufficient” to govern AI use. No formal ISBA ethics opinion exists; the ARDC’s October 2025 implementation guide is the de facto standard of care. ISBA Mutual has warned that standard policies may not automatically cover AI-related errors. Firms missing a written AI policy, citation verification, or ARDC-aligned vendor diligence are exposed on Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3.

Start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy modeled on the ARDC’s sample template, a citation verification log for every filing, and training records aligned to the ARDC PMBR AI module.

ARDC, The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

Citation: Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI (October 2025). Primary source (interactive flipbook). ARDC AI resources page.

Status: Practice guidance and implementation guide. Non-binding. The Guide describes itself as providing “adaptable starting points” rather than mandatory prescriptions, and is not a formal ethics opinion. The ISBA has issued no numbered formal ethics opinion on AI; the ISBA ethics opinion index confirms this through 2025 (ISBA ethics opinion years).

What it requires (mandatory language)

• Attorneys must confirm that AI tools maintain the privacy and security of confidential and personally identifiable information before use.
• Attorneys must classify information by sensitivity, categorize the AI tool (third-party-managed vs. internally hosted; public vs. enterprise), and evaluate and document applicable safeguards.
• Due diligence remains mandatory regardless of client position: client notice does not shift risk to the attorney.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• Provide client notice “particularly where AI use touches on confidential or sensitive matters.”
• Honor client opt-out rights.
• Document informed client consent where AI use is material to the representation.
• Use the Practice Resource Kit’s sample documents: Notice of AI Practices, Use of GAI Tools Policy, Informed Client Consent Form, and GAI Terms of Use Checklist.

Rules cited: Rule 1.1 (Competence); Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation); Rule 1.4 (Communication); Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality, the primary ethical obligation).

Notable gaps

The Guide does not address billing or fees implications of AI. It does not address AI-generated errors discovered post-filing, and draws no bright line for which information categories are too sensitive for any AI tool.

ISBA Standing Committee on AI: FAQ and Best Practices

In October 2025, the ISBA Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence issued Frequently Asked Questions and Suggested Best Practices Related to Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession (primary source). The FAQ confirms there is no universal disclosure requirement in Illinois courts (per the Supreme Court Policy). No current universal requirement exists to inform clients of AI use, though proactive notice is a best practice. The existing ethics framework (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3, and candor) governs without new rule amendments. AI hallucinations are framed as a tool-management problem, not an excuse.

What federal courts in Illinois require for AI use in filings

N.D. Ill., Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes (revised December 20, 2024): The Standing Order for Civil Cases requires any party using a generative AI tool for legal research or drafting to disclose AI use in the filing. The disclosure must include the specific tool and manner of use. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 enforces accuracy obligations. The December 2024 revision incorporates reference to the Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy. Verify the order text directly with the court via the N.D. Ill. judge information page.

No district-wide AI standing order has been adopted in N.D. Ill., C.D. Ill., or S.D. Ill. Outside Judge Fuentes’s chambers, the operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What Illinois state courts require for AI use in filings

Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (December 18, 2024; effective January 1, 2025): AI use “may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards.” As a statewide default, disclosure of AI use “should not be required in a pleading.” All users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding. They must understand both general AI capabilities and the specific tools used. Users remain “accountable for their final work product” regardless of AI use. AI applications must not compromise sensitive information (confidential communications, PII, PHI, justice and public safety data, security-related information). Primary source PDF; official announcement. The Policy does not amend or cite individual Rules of Professional Conduct by number. It does not address fee billing, client disclosure, or non-litigation AI use.

22nd Judicial Circuit (McHenry County), Administrative Order No. 2024-23 (October 9, 2024): Entered by Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel and titled “Artificial Intelligence Policy and Plan.” Operationally, the text is short and exhortatory rather than prescriptive. The recitals invoke Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (pleadings must be well-grounded), the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, and the 2023 Code of Judicial Conduct. Ordering paragraphs require that “Participants and professionals in cases in this Circuit shall consider the admonitions set forth above and engage AI carefully.” Judges of the Circuit are directed to learn about AI, evaluate AI-enabled legal research tools, and implement standing orders addressing AI use. No circuit-wide disclosure requirement, approved or prohibited tools list, or sanctions schedule appears in the Order itself. Those are left to individual judges’ standing orders, creating potential intra-circuit inconsistency. Primary source PDF.

Madison County (3rd Judicial Circuit), Standing Order on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Civil Cases (September 2025): Issued by Judge Sarah D. Smith and subsequently extended circuit-wide in Madison County. Attorneys must certify that discovery answers are “accurate, complete, and not generated solely by AI.” During depositions and court proceedings, AI may be used only if all parties consent to the specific tool and it meets privacy restrictions. AI-generated evidence must be disclosed to the opposing party 90 days before trial and identified at trial. AI use in jury selection requires advance disclosure. An expert’s reliance on AI to formulate an opinion must also be disclosed. Before relying on the order for compliance, obtain its text directly from the Madison County Circuit Court clerk.

What AI-related rules are pending in Illinois?

No pending ISBA formal opinion or Illinois Supreme Court rule amendment on attorney AI conduct is documented. The Illinois Supreme Court has explicitly chosen the administrative-guidance approach over rule amendments. Illinois HB 3773 (signed August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2026) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit algorithmic discrimination in employment decisions and requires employer notice when AI influences employment decisions. It affects law firms as employers but does not regulate the practice of law (bill text).

How do malpractice carriers in Illinois treat AI use?

ISBA Mutual Insurance Company is the ISBA-endorsed legal malpractice carrier for Illinois lawyers. ISBA Mutual has stated that “Illinois attorneys cannot assume that standard professional liability policies automatically account for AI-related errors” and has urged firms to review existing coverage specifically for AI-related exposures. Published guidance directs firms to verify every AI-generated citation before filing, obtain informed client consent before inputting confidential information into any AI platform, and understand each platform’s data retention practices. Partners bear supervisory responsibility under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 even without direct involvement. ISBA Mutual has not published explicit AI-specific exclusions or endorsements.

The ARDC PMBR AI ethics module (“Artificial Intelligence: Benefits, Risks, and Ethical Considerations”) is mandatory for Illinois attorneys in private practice who do not report malpractice insurance to the ARDC. Attorneys who carry and report insurance are exempt. This makes the carrier relationship the de facto enforcement backstop for attorney AI risk management in Illinois.

What does my Illinois malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

ISBA Mutual has not published a specific AI questionnaire or application addendum in materials reviewed for this entry. It has, however, explicitly warned that standard policies may not automatically cover AI-related errors. The carrier’s published guidance points to the ARDC’s Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI together with Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3 as the substantive standard. Plan on producing five artifacts. First, a written AI use policy modeled on the ARDC sample. Second, vendor due diligence records using the ARDC’s GAI Terms of Use Checklist. Third, citation verification logs for court filings. Fourth, supervisory review records. Fifth, an ARDC registration compliance record showing every attorney either reported insurance or completed the PMBR AI module in the current biennial cycle. A written exchange with the broker at renewal documenting the AI coverage question demonstrates the firm treated it seriously.

What documentation should a Illinois firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy modeled on the ARDC’s Sample Use of GAI Tools Policy. Cover approved and prohibited tools, information classification tiers, verification requirements, supervision chain, and incident response. Anchors to Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3 and the Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log for every AI-assisted filing, documenting independent verification in Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent. Preempts Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 exposure. Magistrate Judge Fuentes’s standing order in N.D. Ill. requires this log for any filing before that bench.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific disclosure tracker for every court the firm practices in: Madison County standing order requirements (discovery certification, 90-day evidence disclosure), N.D. Ill. before Judge Fuentes (specific tool name and manner of use), and individual state-judge standing orders.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence file for each AI tool, using the ARDC’s GAI Terms of Use Checklist. Capture data retention and deletion, training data opt-out, security certifications, incident response, and enterprise vs. consumer version distinction.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervisory review records documenting that a supervising attorney reviewed AI-generated work product before filing or client delivery. Addresses Rules 5.1 and 5.3 and ISBA Mutual guidance on partner liability.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) ARDC registration compliance record confirming that every attorney either reported malpractice insurance to the ARDC or completed the PMBR “Artificial Intelligence: Benefits, Risks, and Ethical Considerations” module in the current biennial cycle.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client notice and consent records using the ARDC’s Sample Notice of AI Practices and Sample Informed Client Consent Form adapted for the firm. Anchors to Rules 1.4 and 1.6.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Insurance coverage review at each renewal cycle. Document whether the firm’s professional liability policy addresses AI-related errors. ISBA Mutual has expressly warned that standard policies may not automatically cover them.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.