Illinois: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Illinois firm: The Illinois Supreme Court’s Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective January 1, 2025) is the operative statewide framework. It authorizes AI use by attorneys and litigants, requires that users “thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding,” and states that disclosure “should not be required in a pleading.” In announcing it, Chief Justice Theis said the Court’s “current rules are sufficient to govern its use.” No ISBA ethics opinion on AI exists; the ARDC’s October 2025 guide is a nonbinding companion to the Policy. Individual judges in Madison County impose their own disclosure or certification requirements, and a Cook County chancery judge strikes submissions containing AI-hallucinated authority. ISBA Mutual has warned that standard policies may not automatically cover AI-related errors.

Start with three artifacts: a written AI use policy (the ARDC’s sample template is one starting point), a citation verification log for every filing, and a court-by-court record of the judges whose AI orders apply to the firm’s matters.

ARDC, The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

Citation: Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI (effective October 1, 2025). Primary source (interactive flipbook). ARDC AI resources page.

Status: Practice guidance. Nonbinding. The ARDC describes the Guide as “a concise, nonbinding companion to the Illinois Supreme Court’s AI Policy,” and the Guide itself says: “We do not intend this to be mandatory, but we encourage lawyers to adapt this framework to their own practices” and “These resources are nonbinding, and not Court policy.” It is not a formal ethics opinion. The ISBA has issued no numbered ethics opinion on AI; its opinion index lists none through September 2026 (ISBA ethics opinion years).

The core framework (nonbinding)

The Guide offers a three-step framework “as a nonbinding example which, if adapted to a lawyer’s specific circumstances, may help document the safeguards required under Illinois Rule 1.6”:

• Step 1: Classify the information to be processed by sensitivity.
• Step 2: Categorize the GAI tool (for example, third-party-managed versus internally hosted; public or consumer versus enterprise).
• Step 3: Evaluate and document the applicable GAI safeguards.

The Guide treats client communication as a complement to, not a substitute for, the lawyer’s own diligence: “simply obtaining a client’s consent cannot be used as a substitute for the due diligence we’ve outlined.”

What it recommends

• When a tool processes information classified no higher than confidential information, “lawyers are encouraged to provide clients with notice and a right to opt out.”
• When processing sensitive personal information, and generally when using public or consumer tools, the Guide encourages obtaining informed client consent.
• The Practice Resource Kit supplies a Sample Notice of Artificial Intelligence Practices, a Sample Use of GAI Tools Policy, a Sample Informed Client Consent Form, and a GAI Terms of Use Checklist.

Rules cited: Rule 1.0(e) (informed consent); Rule 1.1 and Comment [8] (competence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 1.6 (confidentiality, the Guide’s primary focus).

Notable gaps

The Guide does not address fees or billing for AI-assisted work, and it does not address AI-generated errors discovered after filing.

Other Illinois bar commentary

The ISBA Rural Practice Section newsletter (October 2025) republished a Frequently Asked Questions and Suggested Best Practices article on generative AI by practitioner Carolyn Elefant, which the newsletter notes “was originally posted on LawOfficesofCarolynElefant.com in 2024” (newsletter article). It is one author’s commentary, not an ISBA position. On court disclosure, the article answers: “Not universally, but some courts are requiring disclosure through standing orders.”

What federal courts in Illinois require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI local rule or general order has been adopted in N.D. Ill., C.D. Ill., or S.D. Ill.: the N.D. Ill. local rules and general orders, the C.D. Ill. local rules (effective September 3, 2026), and the S.D. Ill. local rules contain no AI provision. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Some N.D. Ill. judges address AI in their chambers procedures:

• Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes (N.D. Ill.): his Standing Order for Civil Cases (dated March 3, 2026) imposes no separate AI disclosure. An appendix, which the order states “is not a part of the Standing Order,” refers counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court Policy, states that the Court “expects that no counsel will submit hallucinated authorities,” and says the Court will presume the Rule 11 certification represents that filers “have read and analyzed all cited authorities” (standing order).
• Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and Judge Iain D. Johnston (N.D. Ill.) have chambers provisions requiring anyone using AI in connection with a filing to comply with Rules 11(b) and 26(g); neither requires disclosure. Judge Coleman’s provision adds that the court “prohibits the use AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions or citing non-existent cases” (Coleman entry; Johnston entry).
• The former disclosure requirement of Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole (entry) is no longer posted by the court.

What Illinois state courts require for AI use in filings

Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (announced December 18, 2024; effective January 1, 2025): “The use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys, and court staff providing similar support may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.” Attorneys, judges, and self-represented litigants “are accountable for their final work product,” and “All users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding” to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations. Users must understand both general AI capabilities and the specific tools they use, and AI applications must not compromise sensitive information (confidential communications, PII, PHI, justice and public safety data, security-related information). “The Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct apply fully to the use of AI technologies.” Primary source PDF; official announcement; tracker entry. The Policy does not amend individual Rules of Professional Conduct, and it does not address fees or client disclosure.

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.” 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. The ordering paragraphs provide that “Participants and professionals in cases in this Circuit shall consider the admonitions set forth above and engage AI carefully, especially with regard to the rules which govern the use of AI directly and indirectly.” Judges of the Circuit are directed to learn about AI, evaluate AI-enabled legal research tools, and endeavor to implement standing orders addressing AI use. No circuit-wide disclosure requirement, approved or prohibited tools list, or sanctions schedule appears in the Order itself. Primary source PDF; tracker entry.

Madison County (Third Judicial Circuit), Judge Sarah D. Smith, Standing Order on Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Civil Cases (filed September 24, 2025): Primary source PDF. Its provisions include:

• Discovery. Attorneys who use AI in responding to discovery must file a signed certification that they have personally reviewed the responses, verified that the answers are accurate and complete based on their own legal judgment, and are not relying solely on the AI tool’s output. If AI or automated summarization tools helped answer interrogatories or summarize client records, “counsel must disclose that fact to opposing counsel at the time of service.”
• Depositions. A checklist governs AI tools at depositions, including obtaining “explicit consent from all parties if any tool used interacts with live deposition testimony or recordings.” “A witness is absolutely prohibited from utilizing AI tools or software to generate answers to depositions questions.”
• Evidence and trial. A party seeking to introduce AI-enhanced or AI-generated evidence must give notice and disclose it to the opposing party by affidavit at least 90 days before trial. AI use in jury selection must be disclosed in advance of voir dire, and an expert’s report must describe any AI the expert relied on.

Judge Patrick G. King issued a separate standing order on AI use in civil cases on November 25, 2025, with a parallel structure (primary source PDF; tracker entry).

Cook County: Judge Ehrlich’s standing order for Chancery Calendar 9 (effective August 27, 2026) requires no disclosure of AI use but provides that citations, holdings, and quotations hallucinated by AI “will result in the submission being stricken and may result in sanctions being imposed” (tracker entry). Two earlier Cook County disclosure rules are no longer in force: Judge Cleary’s jury-trial AI provision, which required on-document disclosure of AI use and verification of cited authority, was removed from his standing order on March 10, 2025, and Judge Horan’s Calendar 9 caption-disclosure rule was reversed on June 30, 2025.

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 chosen the administrative-policy approach over rule amendments. Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773; approved August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2026) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes, or to fail to notify employees that it is using AI for covered employment decisions. It affects law firms as employers but does not regulate the practice of law (public act).

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 (ISBA Mutual, April 2026). 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. Drawing on ABA Formal Opinion 512, it notes that partners bear supervisory responsibility under Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 even without direct involvement. ISBA Mutual has not published explicit AI-specific exclusions or endorsements.

Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(e)(2), an attorney in private practice who reports no malpractice insurance must complete the ARDC’s Professional Responsibility Self-Assessment (PMBR) or obtain insurance as a condition of registering. The 2024-2025 PMBR included a module titled “Artificial Intelligence: Benefits, Risks, and Ethical Considerations.” The PMBR (2026-2027) required for 2027 registration consists of four modules, none of them on AI (PMBR 2026-2027; Rule 756).

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, and its published guidance anchors on ABA Formal Opinion 512. Plan on producing five artifacts. First, a written AI use policy (the ARDC sample is one model). Second, vendor due diligence records, for example 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 that every attorney either reported insurance or completed the PMBR in the current cycle. A written exchange with the broker at renewal documenting the AI coverage question demonstrates the firm treated it seriously.

What documentation should an Illinois firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy, for example adapted from 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. Supports the Policy’s review requirement and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 compliance.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI order tracker for every court the firm practices in: the Madison County standing orders (discovery certification, disclosure to opposing counsel, 90-day evidence disclosure), Cook County judges’ standing orders, and the chambers procedures of the assigned federal judge.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence file for each AI tool, for example 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 required for the current registration 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, for example adapted from the ARDC’s Sample Notice of Artificial Intelligence Practices and Sample Informed Client Consent Form. 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 newsletter covers new resources as they ship.