Indiana: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Indiana firm: There is no Indiana State Bar Association formal AI opinion, but the Southern District of Indiana has already sanctioned an attorney for AI-hallucinated citations and referred the matter for bar discipline under Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3. The Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee has stated it intends to issue attorney and litigant guidance, 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 (“AI in the Legal Industry: An ISBA Series Presented by LexisNexis,” launched at the September 2023 annual summit), not formal ethics guidance.

Formed in fall 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee has approved an internal AI use policy for court employees. It released a trial-court AI policy toolkit in February 2026. The committee has stated it plans to develop guidance for attorney and litigant AI use in court. That guidance had not been issued as of 2026-04-23. 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 the Southern District of Indiana has already applied Rules 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3 to AI hallucinations in In re Ramirez (discussed below).

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. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support and legal contentions must be warranted. In re Ramirez confirmed that AI-fabricated citations violate that standard and the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

Individual judges may impose AI requirements through case management orders or chambers practices that are not separately published. Firms should 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

No statewide AI standing order or rule. The February 2026 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. Individual trial court judges may adopt policies based on the toolkit that affect attorneys practicing before them.

Separately, the Indiana Supreme Court authorized a two-year AI pilot in mental health commitment appeals using closed, sequestered transcript generation. The pilot governs court administration, not attorney conduct.

In re Ramirez (S.D. Ind. 2025)

Citation: In re Rafael Ramirez, No. 1:25-mc-00013-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.); related matter Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund et al. v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326 (S.D. Ind., sanctions order May 28, 2025). Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore; District Judge James Patrick Hanlon.

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. The court applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal). Magistrate Judge Dinsmore recommended a $15,000 sanction ($5,000 per pleading); Judge Hanlon imposed $6,000 and referred the matter to Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for consideration of additional discipline under state bar rules.

Significance for Indiana firms: Ramirez establishes three things. First, the S.D. Indiana will sanction attorneys for AI hallucinations under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, not just procedural rules. Second, bar referral is an available sanction. Third, prior monetary sanctions in unrelated matters can support escalation when verification practices do not change.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has separately cautioned pro se litigants who cite AI-fabricated cases. They face the same standards as licensed attorneys, and the court warned it “might impose sanctions in the future.” Attorneys cannot cite unfamiliarity with AI behavior as a defense.

What AI-related rules are pending in Indiana?

The Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee has stated it intends to develop 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. It began work in July 2024 and is scheduled to conclude in December 2027. The task force focuses on state-government AI use, not attorney practice. Indiana HB 1620 (effective 2025-07-01) imposes AI disclosure obligations on health care providers and insurers. It is relevant to firms advising those clients but does not regulate law firms directly. The Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (effective 2026-01-01) applies to controllers processing data of 100,000+ Indiana residents (or 25,000+ where data sales drive revenue). Most 5-50 attorney 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. The national pattern applies. Some carriers are attaching manuscript endorsements that exclude claims based on generative AI use. Coverage may be denied where AI made critical legal judgments without attorney oversight. 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 In re Ramirez (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. In re Ramirez (S.D. Ind. 2025) makes this mandatory in practice for any Indiana federal filing.
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 individual standing orders and case management orders for any AI disclosure requirement. 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 monthly update covers new resources as they ship.