Wisconsin: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Wisconsin firm: No Wisconsin formal opinion addresses AI, and no statewide court rule on AI has been adopted, so SCR Chapter 20 supplies the governing duties. Firms documenting compliance in the Waukesha County Family Division may wish to consider that court’s standing order, which requires a certification under penalty of perjury identifying the AI tool and confirming that every citation was verified. Kenosha County’s local rule requires AI disclosure and a verification certification, and two AI rule petitions reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2026.

Documentation firms often start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and a per-tool confidentiality review record informed by EF-15-01.

What governs by default

No formal ethics opinion specifically addressing AI has issued from the State Bar of Wisconsin Professional Ethics Committee. As of 2026-09-30, the State Bar formal opinions page lists opinions through EF-26-01 (September 3, 2026, duty to report misconduct), and none addresses AI. Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR Chapter 20) apply directly. The page-level applicable-rules block carries the AI-relevance gloss.

Wisconsin adopted the technology language of ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment [8] by Supreme Court Order No. 15-03 (2016 WI 76, filed July 21, 2016, effective January 1, 2017). Comment [8] states that a lawyer “should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

Two Wisconsin formal opinions anchor the confidentiality analysis. Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-15-01 states that “A lawyer may use cloud computing as long as the lawyer uses reasonable efforts to adequately address the risks associated with it,” and that storage of information in the cloud “may be deemed an impliedly authorized disclosure to the provider” when the lawyer takes those steps. Factors include the information’s sensitivity, client instructions, and “the attorney’s ability to assess the technology’s level of security.” Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-17-02 states that “The ethical duty of confidentiality protects all information relating to the representation of the client, whatever its source.” Inputting client information into a general-purpose AI tool implicates both opinions.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024-07-29) is instructive but not binding in Wisconsin and is the reference framework cited in Wisconsin Lawyer articles.

The October 2024 Wisconsin Lawyer ethics column by State Bar ethics counsel Sarah E. Peterson, “Ethical Considerations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence”, maps SCR 20:1.1, 20:1.4, 20:1.5, 20:1.6, 20:3.1, 20:3.3, 20:5.1, 20:5.3, and 20:8.4(c) to AI use. It quotes ABA Formal Opinion 512’s statement that “merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters purporting to authorize the lawyer to use GAI is not sufficient” for informed consent. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jean M. Kies’s January 2025 “Reflections” piece argues that “courts and bar associations should develop methods and guidelines to deal with the use of GenAI” and calls ABA Opinion 512 “instructive for Wisconsin lawyers and judges.”

What federal courts in Wisconsin require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, the E.D. Wis. general orders index and local rules, the W.D. Wis. administrative orders and local rules, the judges’ published practice procedures in both districts, and the general orders of both Wisconsin bankruptcy courts contain no AI-specific order. The E.D. Wis. “Representing Yourself” page carries a notice that “documents created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications” and that such filings “may result in sanctions by the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 remains the operative federal standard. Firms documenting compliance may wish to record a check of the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter.

Wisconsin federal judges have addressed fabricated citations case by case since 2023, including in Frier v. Hingiss, Plumbers & Gasfitters Union Local No. 75 Health Fund v. Morris Plumbing, Arajuo v. Wedelstadt, Pelishek v. City of Sheboygan, Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee, and Hippe v. Retention Brands.

What Wisconsin state courts require for AI use in filings

No AI-specific rule or administrative order has issued from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Petition 26-02 (filed February 19, 2026) proposed an SCR Chapter 76 requiring lawyers to verify AI-assisted filings and disclose the tool used; the petitioner filed a letter dated September 28, 2026 requesting withdrawal. Petition 26-06 (filed September 28, 2026) proposes SCR 76.20 to 76.24 on “equal access to artificial intelligence in legal proceedings,” including a bar on local rules that restrict litigants’ AI use while permitting it for attorneys or court staff; it has not been scheduled for hearing. The Director of State Courts has convened an AI Committee that began reviewing a proposed interim policy for the court system.

Waukesha County Circuit Court Presiding Judge Ralph M. Ramirez signed Standing Order 26-SO-03 (67) on January 22, 2026 (announced by the county on January 27, 2026), governing AI use in Family Division filings. It “applies to all attorneys, parties, and pro se litigants.” A filer who uses AI “in any capacity to create, prepare, draft, or review a filing shall disclose such use in the document” with a certification, under penalty of perjury, naming the AI tool used and stating that “every citation to law, case, statute or the record in this document has been verified as accurate and that it exists as cited for the proposition cited.” Failure to comply may result in striking the filing, sanctions, or disciplinary referral, and “Mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses for noncompliance.” The use of AI does not relieve filers of their obligations under the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules of professional conduct and Wis. Stat. § 802.05. See the tracker entry.

Kenosha County Circuit Court rule CR 02-12, in the circuit court rules as revised January 12, 2026 (rules PDF, the most recent version located as of 2026-09-30), requires anyone filing documents to disclose AI use “with the document or in a separate certification filed simultaneously,” identifying the tool, how it was used, and “[a]ny relevant limitations or potential biases of the AI system, if any.” The person making the disclosure “must certify that they have reviewed and verified the accuracy and appropriateness of any AI-generated content in the filed document.” Firms documenting compliance in Kenosha County may wish to confirm with the clerk whether a later district-level policy has changed this requirement.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Wisconsin?

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has addressed fictitious citations by self-represented appellants. In N.E.W. Credit Union v. Mehlhorn, No. 2023AP2187 (Aug. 13, 2024), the court wrote: “We strongly admonish Mehlhorn for her violations of the Rules of Appellate procedure, and particularly for her citations to what appear to be fictitious cases.” In Graham-Jackson v. Martin, No. 2024AP2274 (Aug. 7, 2025) (per curiam), the court stated “we order monetary sanctions of $500.” Wisconsin’s federal courts have entered orders on fabricated citations since 2023 (see the linked federal entries above).

What AI-related rules are pending in Wisconsin?

Two AI rule petitions are before the Wisconsin Supreme Court (see above): Petition 26-02, whose petitioner has requested withdrawal, and Petition 26-06, which is pending. No Wisconsin statute regulates attorney AI use. On 2025-02-18, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Study Committee on the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence submitted its final report. Its seven recommendations were to focus on data rather than regulating AI as a technology, avoid comprehensive AI legislation in favor of high-risk areas, ensure existing laws apply to AI models, include AI in existing programs, consider a permanent body to review emerging technologies, invest in technology that assists public safety, and direct the executive branch to promulgate rules. None addresses lawyers or courts. In the 2025-26 session, bills permitting AI or machine-assisted translation in court proceedings (AB 292 and SB 295) failed to pass on March 23, 2026. No State Bar AI task force or draft AI opinion was located as of 2026-09-30.

How do malpractice carriers in Wisconsin treat AI use?

Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (WILMIC) is an in-state carrier. No filed AI exclusion has been located in the admitted lawyers professional liability market, and no Wisconsin carrier has published AI-specific policy language in materials reviewed for this entry. Whether a claim arising from AI-assisted work is covered will turn on the policy terms, so firms documenting compliance may wish to keep the carrier’s written answer on file.

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

No Wisconsin carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. Substantively, the standard is SCR Chapter 20 as mapped in the Wisconsin Lawyer articles, plus EF-15-01 and ABA Formal Opinion 512. Firms documenting compliance may wish to keep a written AI use policy, per-tool confidentiality review records, citation verification logs, training records for attorneys and staff, and a written exchange with the broker or carrier asking whether the policy covers AI-related errors. Firms may wish to confirm current application items with their carrier or broker.

What documentation should a Wisconsin firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (SCR 20:1.1, 20:1.6, 20:5.1, 20:5.3; EF-15-01). Identify approved tools and tasks, the verification step before any AI-generated content enters a filing or client deliverable, the supervision chain, and an update schedule. The October 2024 Wisconsin Lawyer ethics column quotes ABA Formal Opinion 512: “Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies regarding the law firm’s permissible use of GAI.”
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log (SCR 20:3.1, 20:3.3, 20:8.4(c)). Pre-filing check that each cited authority was independently verified in Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent. Relevant to the Waukesha County Family Division certification requirement, Kenosha County’s verification certification, and the Court of Appeals decisions on fictitious citations.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI disclosure workflow (SCR 20:3.3). A pre-filing check of whether the assigned court has an AI policy or standing order. Waukesha County Family Division: identify the AI tool and certify under penalty of perjury that the document was independently reviewed and every citation verified (Standing Order 26-SO-03 (67)). Kenosha County: rule CR 02-12 (rules as revised January 12, 2026, the latest version located) requires disclosure with the filing or in a simultaneous certification, with a verification certification; confirm with the clerk whether a later district policy applies. Other state courts and E.D./W.D. Wis. judges: check individual standing orders.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Per-tool confidentiality review record (SCR 20:1.6; EF-15-01). For each AI tool: documented review of Terms of Use, data retention and deletion, training-data opt-out, security certifications, and consumer versus enterprise version. EF-15-01 calls for reasonable efforts commensurate with the risk, weighing factors such as the information’s sensitivity and “the attorney’s ability to assess the technology’s level of security”; a written record is one way to document those efforts.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (SCR 20:5.1, 20:5.3). Documentation that a supervising attorney reviewed all AI-generated work product before filing or client delivery.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records (SCR 20:1.1, 20:5.3). Date, attendees, and content of AI training: capabilities, limitations, data security, and firm policy.

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 confidentiality consent (SCR 20:1.4, 20:1.6). Per-client, per-matter determination of whether consent is required before client information enters an AI tool, with consent recorded. ABA Formal Opinion 512, quoted in the October 2024 Wisconsin Lawyer column, states that general boilerplate engagement-letter consent is not sufficient.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes (SCR 20:1.1, 20:3.1, 20:3.3). On any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content, a brief attorney note: which tool, what tasks, how output was verified.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Insurance coverage inquiry record (SCR 20:1.1). At each renewal, a written exchange with the broker or carrier asking whether the policy covers AI-related errors, with the carrier’s written response retained.

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