Wisconsin: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Wisconsin firm: No Wisconsin formal opinion exists and no statewide court mandate applies, so existing SCR Chapter 20 rules govern AI use today and the State Bar’s Wisconsin Lawyer guidance treats them as adequate without amendment. Firms practicing in Waukesha County Family Division must comply with that court’s perjury-certified citation standing order, and the February 2026 Kenosha County sanctions show Wisconsin courts will strike filings and dismiss cases for undisclosed AI use with fabricated citations.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log for court filings, and a per-tool confidentiality review record under 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. The current opinion index (EF-20-01 through EF-25-03) is published at the State Bar formal opinions page and contains no AI-specific opinion. 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 ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 (technology competence) on 2016-07-21, effective 2017-01-01. Lawyers must keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology, including AI tools used in client representation.

Two Wisconsin formal opinions anchor the confidentiality analysis. Per Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-15-01, transmission and storage of client information in cloud services may be impliedly authorized, provided the lawyer takes reasonable steps to ensure adequate provider safeguards. Sensitivity, client instructions, and the lawyer’s ability to assess security all factor in. Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-17-02 confirms that SCR 20:1.6 protects all information relating to the representation, regardless of source. Inputting client information into a general-purpose AI tool implicates both opinions.

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

The State Bar has addressed AI through Wisconsin Lawyer articles, CLE sessions, and informal Ethics Counsel guidance. The October 2024 article “Ethical Considerations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence” maps SCR 20:1.1, 20:1.4, 20:1.6, 20:3.1, 20:3.3, 20:5.1, 20:5.3, and 20:8.4(c) to AI use scenarios. It also confirms that general engagement letter boilerplate does not constitute informed consent for AI use. Judge Jean M. Kies’s January 2025 “Reflections” piece advocates for formal Wisconsin court guidelines and treats Op 512 as instructive.

What federal courts in Wisconsin require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order has been identified for the Eastern District of Wisconsin or the Western District of Wisconsin. As of 2026-04-25, the E.D. Wis. general orders index and local rules and guidance index contain no AI-specific order. The W.D. Wis. administrative orders index and local rules likewise contain none. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: factual contentions must have evidentiary support, and legal contentions must be warranted. Individual judges may impose AI disclosure requirements through chambers practices not captured in publicly available trackers. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter.

What Wisconsin state courts require for AI use in filings

No AI-specific standing order, administrative order, or rule amendment has issued from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Two circuit-level orders carry the state-court layer.

Waukesha County Circuit Court, Family Division issued Standing Order 26-SO-03-67 on 2026-01-27 governing AI use in Family Division filings. Per the court announcement, the order applies to all attorneys, parties, and self-represented litigants. Any filing prepared with AI assistance must be independently reviewed to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and proper use of applicable law. Filers must disclose AI use and include a certification verifying that all legal citations have been personally reviewed and confirmed as accurate. AI use does not relieve attorneys or pro se litigants of their ethical or professional obligations under Wisconsin law. Consequences for noncompliance include striking the filing, sanctions, or disciplinary referral.

Kenosha County Circuit Court policy requires that any filing party disclose AI use in a separate filing. That filing must name the specific AI tool, describe how it was used, and note any relevant limitations or potential biases.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Wisconsin?

In February 2026, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge David Hughes sanctioned Kenosha County District Attorney Xavier Solis for submitting a written response in a burglary case without disclosing AI use. On review, defense counsel discovered the filing contained hallucinated and false citations. One was connected to construction contract disputes in Nebraska, and at least one was described as purely imaginary. Judge Hughes struck the entire response. The case against Christain Garrett and Cornelius Garrett was dismissed without prejudice for insufficient probable cause. All 74 criminal charges (including 38 felonies) were dismissed. The case had been pending since 2023.

This is the first documented major AI hallucination sanctions incident in a Wisconsin court and demonstrates that downstream consequences reach the case itself, not just the attorney.

What AI-related rules are pending in Wisconsin?

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. Attorney conduct and legal practice were not addressed; recommendations covered disinformation, synthetic media, healthcare, law enforcement, consumer privacy, and workforce development. While the 2025 session includes niche AI bills (court interpretation, algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods), none regulate attorney conduct. No AI task force or draft opinion in progress has been announced by the State Bar of Wisconsin.

How do malpractice carriers in Wisconsin treat AI use?

Wisconsin law does not require attorneys to carry malpractice insurance. Since 1986, Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (WILMIC) has been a primary in-state carrier, offering professional liability coverage up to $15 million. No Wisconsin-specific carrier has publicly issued AI exclusions or AI-specific endorsement language. National practitioner commentary (ABA Journal; ALPS Insurance) flags three coverage-gap scenarios: blind reliance on AI hallucinations without validation, public-facing AI tools deployed without attorney oversight, and uploading confidential client information to unsecured AI platforms. Wisconsin policies generally cover human errors. Whether AI-related errors are insurable can turn on whether the attorney reviewed and verified the output.

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. Plan on producing: 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 specifically asking whether the policy covers AI-related errors. Confirm application items directly with WILMIC or your broker. The Kenosha County dismissal illustrates that the loss scenario is real even where the policy language is silent.

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. Wisconsin Lawyer guidance treats this as foundational.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log (SCR 20:3.1, 20:3.3, 20:8.4(c)). Pre-filing certification that each cited authority was independently verified in Westlaw, Lexis, or equivalent. Direct response to the Kenosha County sanctions and the Waukesha County Family Division citation-verification certification requirement.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI disclosure workflow (SCR 20:3.3). Before each filing, confirm whether the assigned court has an AI policy or standing order. Waukesha County Family Division: disclose AI use, independently review, certify all citations personally reviewed and accurate, per Standing Order 26-SO-03-67. Kenosha County: separate filing naming tool, use, and limitations. 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. Required under the EF-15-01 reasonable-efforts standard.
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. Wisconsin Lawyer guidance treats general engagement letter boilerplate as insufficient.
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 monthly update covers new resources as they ship.