Indiana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for an Indiana firm: There is no Indiana State Bar Association formal AI opinion, but since August 1, 2026 every attorney signature on an Indiana civil trial-court filing certifies that any cited legal authority is authentic, whether or not AI was used (Trial Rule 11). In federal court, the Southern District of Indiana has sanctioned attorneys for AI-fabricated citations and referred one for discipline. The Indiana Supreme Court’s AI Governance Committee says it intends to develop model guidance for attorney and litigant use, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is the operative interpretive framework in the meantime.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before any court filing, and a vendor diligence record for each AI tool in use.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

The Indiana State Bar Association has issued no formal or informal ethics opinion on attorney use of generative AI. ISBA’s published AI work to date is continuing legal education programming and articles, not formal ethics guidance.

The Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee has approved an AI use policy for the Supreme Court and the Office of Judicial Administration, and the court announced a trial-court AI policy toolkit on February 17, 2026 (documents dated September and November 2025). The toolkit’s Model AI Policy Terms state: “While this guidance does not currently establish policies governing such use, the committee intends to develop model guidance for attorney and litigant use in courts in the future.” As of September 2026 that guidance has not been issued. See Pending activity below.

In the absence of a state opinion, the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the persuasive interpretive framework, and a Southern District of Indiana magistrate judge has already applied Rules 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3 to AI hallucinations in the Ramirez matter (discussed below).

Indiana Trial Rules 11, 11.1, and 11.2: the operative rule

By order of July 14, 2026, effective August 1, 2026, the Indiana Supreme Court amended the signature rules in the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, which govern civil proceedings. Under Trial Rule 11(B), an attorney’s signature now certifies, among other things, “that any cited legal authority is authentic.” Trial Rule 11(F) states that the rule “applies to all pleadings, motions, and other submissions to the court by parties represented by an attorney, including without limitation those prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, the internet, or other resources,” and Trial Rule 11(C) provides that “A court may strike any filing not in compliance with this rule.” Trial Rule 11.1 applies the same certification to self-represented filers. New Trial Rule 11.2 defines an abusive litigant to include one “citing fictitious legal authority” and allows sanctions only after an opportunity for hearing and on a finding of bad faith or that previous remedies have failed; the court may then sanction the filer or attorney whose conduct resulted in the finding, including by default, dismissal with prejudice, and fees. The rules require no disclosure of AI use. See the tracker entry.

What federal courts in Indiana require for AI use in filings

Neither the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana nor the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has issued a district-wide AI standing order or local rule. One S.D. Ind. judge has a published AI rule: Judge Justin R. Olson’s Practices and Procedures (March 2026), section K, provide that “All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to generate, draft, or revise the content of documents submitted to the Court or chambers,” by filing a Certificate Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence. See the tracker entry. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support and legal contentions must be warranted. The Ramirez matter confirmed that AI-fabricated citations violate that standard.

Other judges may impose AI requirements through case management orders. Firms may wish to review the assigned judge’s individual standing orders at the opening of each new federal matter. Verify at the Southern District of Indiana and Northern District of Indiana court sites.

What Indiana state courts require for AI use in filings

Since August 1, 2026, Trial Rules 11, 11.1, and 11.2 (above) apply to civil trial-court filings: the signer certifies that cited authority is authentic, noncompliant filings may be struck, and citing fictitious authority can support an abusive-litigant finding. There is no AI disclosure rule. The trial-court toolkit consists of four documents: the AI Starter Pack for Indiana Judges, the AI Policy Development and Implementation Checklist, the Model AI Policy Terms, and the Judges AI Buyer’s Guide. The toolkit offers model policies for trial-court internal governance, not rules governing attorney conduct or mandatory disclosure.

Separately, the Indiana Supreme Court authorized an AI pilot in mental health commitment appeals that uses a closed system to generate transcripts; an order of August 24, 2026 extended it until February 28, 2027 while the Court considers whether to amend the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The pilot governs court administration, not attorney conduct.

Mid Central Operating Engineers v. HoosierVac: the Ramirez sanctions (S.D. Ind. 2025)

Citation: Mid Central Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind.): report and recommendation, Dkt. 99 (Feb. 21, 2025) (Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore); order, Dkt. 121 (May 28, 2025) (District Judge James Patrick Hanlon). See the tracker entry.

Attorney Rafael Ramirez submitted briefs in three separate filings containing fabricated case citations generated by AI tools. Ramirez acknowledged relying on generative AI without verifying the cited cases existed. Magistrate Judge Dinsmore’s report analyzed the conduct under Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), and 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), recommended a $15,000 sanction ($5,000 per brief), and referred the matter to the Chief Judge under Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a). Judge Hanlon adopted the recommendation in part and imposed a $6,000 sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Significance for Indiana firms: The matter shows the S.D. Indiana pairing a Rule 11 monetary sanction with a disciplinary referral analyzed under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. In setting the amount, the court noted that sanctions imposed on other attorneys elsewhere had evidently failed to deter the practice. Later Indiana federal matters in the tracker include Davis v. Marion County Superior Court Juvenile Detention Center (S.D. Ind. 2025), Maldonado v. Professional Animal Retirement Center (N.D. Ind. 2026), and Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2026).

The Indiana Court of Appeals has separately cautioned litigants who cite fabricated cases. In Wilcox v. Gingrinch (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2026), it held self-represented appellants “to the same standards as a trained attorney,” declined to impose sanctions, and cautioned “all litigants who appear before this Court, that the submission of briefs citing nonexistent authorities in future proceedings may result in sanctions.”

What AI-related rules are pending in Indiana?

The Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee has stated it intends to develop model guidance for attorney and litigant AI use in court. No publication date has been announced. Firms should monitor times.courts.in.gov for releases.

Indiana SB 150 (2024) created an Artificial Intelligence Task Force studying AI use by state agencies. The law took effect July 1, 2024, and the task force chapter expires December 31, 2027. The task force focuses on state-government AI use, not attorney practice. The Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (effective 2026-01-01) applies to controllers processing data of 100,000+ Indiana consumers (or 25,000+ where more than 50% of gross revenue comes from selling personal data). Most law firms will not meet the threshold, but firms advising clients on AI deployment should understand the framework.

How do malpractice carriers in Indiana treat AI use?

Indiana does not require individual attorneys to carry malpractice insurance. Limited liability entities operating as law firms must carry coverage; sole practitioners and general partnerships face no mandatory coverage requirement. The absence of a requirement does not reduce malpractice exposure from AI errors.

No Indiana-specific malpractice carrier has published AI practice bulletins comparable to other states’ carrier guidance. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located nationally. A broker has reported a competitor attaching a manuscript AI exclusion to a non-standard lawyers program (Vanguard Specialty, September 30, 2024); the endorsement itself is not public. Cyber liability terms vary on AI-related data breach claims.

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

No dominant Indiana carrier has published specific AI application items. The substantive standard the firm should prepare against combines two sources: the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct as applied in the Ramirez report and recommendation (Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3), plus Rules 1.4, 1.6, 5.1 and 5.3 drawn from ABA Formal Opinion 512. Plan on producing five items: a written AI use policy, citation-verification records, vendor due-diligence records for each tool in use, training logs, and per-matter AI use notes. Before renewal, ask the broker in writing whether the current policy covers claims arising from AI-generated work product, whether any endorsement excludes AI use, and whether the policy requires a written AI use policy. Retain the carrier’s response with the policy file.

What documentation should a Indiana firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

Three foundational artifacts establish the baseline.

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 5.1, 5.3; ABA Op 512). Enumerate approved tools, prohibit use of open AI models with client data, require attorney verification of all AI-generated citations, assign supervision responsibility, and address billing treatment. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the operative framework.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for court filings (Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Pre-filing step requiring independent verification of every AI-assisted citation against Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent. The Ramirez sanctions (S.D. Ind. 2025) and Trial Rule 11’s authenticity certification (effective 2026-08-01) make this a practical necessity in Indiana federal and state filings.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check (Rules 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Before filing in the N.D. Ind. or S.D. Ind., review the assigned judge’s practices and case management orders for any AI disclosure requirement (for example, Judge Olson’s Certificate Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence). Document the check.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

Operational documentation extends the policy work into vendor and training records.

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor review record (Rule 1.6). For each AI platform: documented review of terms of service, training-data use, data retention, and whether the tool operates as a closed or open model. Mirrors the AI Governance Committee’s vendor evaluation standards.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Date, attendees, and content of AI training covering ABA Formal Opinion 512, the firm AI use policy, hallucination risks, and citation verification procedures.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI disclosure (Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6; ABA Op 512). Clause disclosing that the firm may use AI tools, that all AI output is reviewed and verified by licensed attorneys, and that confidential client information will not be input into open AI models without consent.

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) Per-matter AI use notes (Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3). For each matter where AI is used for research, drafting, or citation work, document the tool, the task, the reviewing attorney, and the verification steps. The Ramirez sanctions order is the standard for what insufficient verification looks like.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Client confidentiality consent (Rule 1.6; ABA Op 512). Written informed consent before client-identifying information enters a third-party AI platform; document tool, information shared, and purpose.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule. Calendar a quarterly check of times.courts.in.gov for the AI Governance Committee’s pending attorney guidance and a review of the firm AI use policy when guidance is issued.

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