Illinois AI Ethics Rules for Lawyers

The official instruments

Two instruments, no formal opinion

Illinois is best understood by what it does not have: a state-bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI. As of June 2026 none exists, and a word of caution belongs here, because the gap invites invention. Aggregator and vendor sites occasionally cite an “ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01” on AI; it has no primary source on the bar’s own site and should not be relied on. This tracker cites only what the primary sources support, which in Illinois means two instruments of different kinds, not a bar opinion. Getting that labeling right is the point of the tracker: each Illinois instrument is recorded by its honest type, never dressed up as a formal opinion it is not.

The first instrument is the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, a judicial-branch court policy announced December 18, 2024 and reported effective January 1, 2025. Its posture is permissive and accountability-based. It authorizes AI use by attorneys, judges, litigants, and court staff, provided that use complies with legal and ethical standards. It concludes that existing rules are sufficient, so it writes no new ones. It declines to require AI disclosure in pleadings, putting Illinois with the jurisdictions that reject a blanket courtroom disclosure mandate. And it makes users fully accountable for their final work product, which the policy ties to thorough review of AI-generated content before filing and to protection of confidential information. The throughline is responsibility, not prohibition: a lawyer may use AI freely and owns the result completely.

The ARDC guide and its framework

The second instrument is newer and more operational. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission released The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI on October 24, 2025, developed in alignment with the Supreme Court’s AI policy. It is guidance, not a formal opinion, and that distinction is worth keeping precise, but it is the most practical AI document Illinois has produced. Its contribution is a three-step framework that turns the policy’s general accountability mandate into a method a lawyer can actually run.

Step one, classify the data: assess the sensitivity of the information being processed before any tool touches it, because the analysis that follows depends on what is at stake. Step two, identify the tool: determine the type of AI tool in use, in particular whether it is a third-party service or an internally hosted system, since that distinction drives where data goes and who can see it. Step three, evaluate safeguards: examine model-training settings, data retention, isolation, and vendor terms to decide whether the tool’s protections match the data’s sensitivity. The guide pairs this framework with a Practice Resource Kit, a set of sample policies, checklists, and client-communication templates aimed especially at solo and small-firm practitioners, the lawyers least likely to have a dedicated compliance function. As one of the newest state frameworks in the country, the ARDC guide is also a moving target worth watching, and the changelog and alerts track Illinois developments as they land.

Practicing under the Illinois framework

The two instruments work together, and a sound Illinois workflow honors both. Start from the court policy’s mandate of full accountability: because Illinois requires no AI disclosure in pleadings but holds the lawyer entirely responsible for the work product, the verification burden sits squarely on the firm. Every AI-surfaced citation should be confirmed in a traditional database before filing, and every output reviewed by a human who owns it. Then layer in the ARDC’s framework as the front-end discipline: classify the data, identify the tool, and evaluate safeguards before a tool is adopted for a matter, and document that analysis so the accountability the court policy demands is evidenced rather than assumed. The Practice Resource Kit is a starting point for the artifacts; the policy template maps the same duties into a firm-wide policy, and the comparison table places Illinois’s no-pleading-disclosure position against the rest of the country.

One layer the Illinois framework only partly settles is the courtroom-by-courtroom question. The Supreme Court policy is statewide and declines to require AI disclosure in pleadings, which is more than many states can say. But the files verify no separate statewide Illinois court rule imposing a uniform AI-in-filings certification, and individual judges can still maintain their own standing orders, particularly in the federal districts. So even in Illinois, the prudent step before a filing is to confirm the assigned judge’s individual practices rather than assuming the state policy’s no-disclosure stance controls in that courtroom; the court orders guide covers that per-filing check, with the Ropes & Gray tracker as a cross-reference.