↓ Skip to main content
AI Standard of Care
  1. AI Legal Ethics by State/
  2. State AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys/

Illinois AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Illinois Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics ISBA ARDC State Bar
Table of Contents

Illinois has emerged as a leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism (2Civility) and the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) providing extensive guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. While Illinois has not issued formal AI-specific ethics opinions, the state’s robust professional responsibility framework, including the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and ARDC enforcement, establishes clear boundaries for responsible AI use.

Regulatory Framework
#

Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC)
#

The ARDC is the disciplinary arm of the Illinois Supreme Court responsible for attorney registration and professional conduct enforcement.

Key Functions:

  • Attorney registration and annual renewal
  • Investigation and prosecution of attorney misconduct
  • Administration of the Client Protection Program
  • Publication of disciplinary decisions and guidance

Contact Information:

  • Chicago Office: (312) 565-2600
  • Springfield Office: (217) 546-3523
  • Website: www.iardc.org

Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA)
#

The ISBA’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct issues advisory opinions interpreting the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

Resources:

Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism
#

Also known as 2Civility, this commission promotes professionalism among Illinois lawyers and has actively addressed AI ethics through CLE programs, publications, and educational resources.

Website: www.2civility.org

AI Ethics Guidance Status
#

Current Status
Illinois has not issued a formal, comprehensive AI ethics opinion. However, the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, combined with existing ISBA advisory opinions on technology use, provide a framework for ethical AI integration.

The 2Civility Commission and ISBA have addressed AI through:

  • CLE Programming: Numerous continuing legal education courses on AI ethics
  • Publications: Articles in the Illinois Bar Journal addressing AI risks
  • Educational Resources: Guidance on technology competence requirements
  • Committee Discussions: Ongoing analysis of AI implications for practice

Core Ethical Obligations Under Illinois Rules
#

Rule 1.1: Competence
#

Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation, which includes the technological competence to understand AI tools used in practice.

AI Competence Requirements:

  • Understand the capabilities and limitations of AI systems
  • Recognize that generative AI can produce hallucinations (fabricated citations, false information)
  • Know when AI assistance is appropriate versus when human judgment is essential
  • Maintain sufficient knowledge to supervise AI outputs effectively

Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 (Technology Competence):

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology…”

Hallucination Risk
Illinois attorneys must verify all AI-generated legal research. Relying on unverified AI outputs that contain fabricated citations may constitute a competence violation under Rule 1.1.

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality
#

Illinois Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosure of client confidential information without informed consent. When using AI tools, attorneys must:

Before AI Use:

  • Review the AI platform’s Terms of Service and privacy policy
  • Determine whether inputs are used to train the AI model
  • Verify data security and encryption measures
  • Assess whether the AI provider shares data with third parties

During AI Use:

  • Avoid inputting client-identifying information when possible
  • Use anonymization or hypotheticals for sensitive matters
  • Consider enterprise AI solutions with stronger privacy protections
  • Document confidentiality safeguards employed

Relevant ISBA Guidance: Previous ISBA opinions on cloud computing and technology use establish that attorneys must take reasonable measures to protect client data when using third-party technology services.

Rule 1.4: Communication
#

Attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed about their matters. AI use may implicate communication duties when:

  • The client specifically asks about AI use in their representation
  • AI use materially affects the representation strategy
  • AI-related costs will be passed to the client
  • The attorney is considering inputting confidential information into AI systems

Best Practice: Consider including AI use provisions in engagement letters, explaining how and when AI tools may be used in the representation.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
#

Illinois attorneys have an absolute duty not to make false statements to courts or submit fabricated evidence. This duty is critical in the AI context:

Verification Requirements:

  • Independently verify all AI-generated case citations
  • Check quoted language against original sources
  • Confirm that cited cases exist and support the propositions stated
  • Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority

Consequences of Failure: Attorneys who submit AI-generated briefs containing fabricated citations face:

  • Court sanctions
  • ARDC disciplinary proceedings
  • Potential malpractice liability
  • Damage to professional reputation

Rule 5.1: Supervisory Responsibilities
#

Partners and supervising attorneys must ensure that lawyers under their supervision comply with professional conduct rules. For AI use, this means:

  • Establishing firm-wide AI use policies
  • Training associates on AI verification requirements
  • Implementing quality control for AI-assisted work product
  • Creating oversight mechanisms for AI use

Rule 5.3: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
#

Attorneys must supervise nonlawyer assistants to ensure their conduct is compatible with professional obligations. AI systems should be treated similarly:

  • AI is a tool requiring human supervision
  • Attorneys cannot delegate professional judgment to AI
  • All AI outputs must be reviewed before use
  • Ultimate responsibility remains with the supervising attorney

Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: AI Application Matrix
#

RuleObligationAI Application
Rule 1.1CompetenceUnderstand AI capabilities/limitations; verify outputs
Rule 1.3DiligenceDon’t let AI cause delays or harm client interests
Rule 1.4CommunicationDiscuss material AI use with clients
Rule 1.5FeesBill reasonably for AI-assisted work
Rule 1.6ConfidentialityProtect client data in AI systems
Rule 3.3CandorVerify all AI content before court submission
Rule 5.1Supervision (Lawyers)Establish AI policies; supervise associates
Rule 5.3Supervision (Nonlawyers)Treat AI like a nonlawyer assistant
Rule 8.4MisconductDon’t use AI to engage in dishonesty or fraud

Billing Considerations
#

Illinois Rule 1.5 requires that attorney fees be reasonable. When billing for AI-assisted work:

Permitted:

  • Time spent crafting and refining AI prompts
  • Time reviewing, verifying, and editing AI outputs
  • Actual time spent creating work product with AI assistance
  • Training time to develop AI competence (potentially)

Prohibited:

  • Billing for time “saved” by AI efficiency
  • Charging for hours not actually worked
  • Passing undisclosed AI subscription costs to clients without agreement

Recommended Practice:

  • Discuss AI use and billing with clients upfront
  • Document time spent on AI-assisted tasks accurately
  • Consider value-based billing for AI-enhanced efficiency
  • Disclose any AI-related costs in fee agreements

Practical Compliance Steps for Illinois Attorneys
#

Illinois AI Compliance Checklist

Firm Policy Development:

  1. Create written AI use policies approved by firm management
  2. Identify approved AI tools and prohibited uses
  3. Establish verification requirements for all AI-generated content
  4. Define confidentiality protocols for AI use

Before Using AI: 5. Review AI platform Terms of Service and privacy policies 6. Verify data security meets professional responsibility standards 7. Determine whether client consent is needed 8. Assess whether the task is appropriate for AI assistance

During AI Use: 9. Avoid inputting confidential client information when possible 10. Use anonymization techniques for sensitive matters 11. Maintain human judgment in all substantive decisions 12. Document your AI use and verification process

After AI Generates Content: 13. Independently verify all case citations in Westlaw/Lexis 14. Check quoted language against original sources 15. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 16. Review for logical consistency and accuracy 17. Ensure content serves client interests

For Court Filings: 18. Personal verification of every citation before filing 19. Consider AI disclosure if required by local court rules 20. Maintain records of verification process

Illinois Court AI Considerations
#

While Illinois courts have not yet issued statewide AI-specific rules, attorneys should:

  • Monitor local court rules for AI disclosure requirements
  • Be prepared to certify that filings have been verified for accuracy
  • Understand that AI hallucination sanctions are increasing nationwide
  • Follow developments from the Illinois Supreme Court and ARDC

Federal Courts in Illinois: The Northern District of Illinois and other federal courts in Illinois may have specific AI disclosure or certification requirements. Always check current local rules before filing.

Malpractice Insurance Considerations
#

Illinois attorneys should review their professional liability policies regarding AI:

  • Some carriers may exclude AI-related claims
  • Disclosure of AI use may be required
  • Document verification procedures for potential defense
  • Consider whether current coverage adequately addresses AI risks

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Does Illinois require disclosure of AI use to clients?

Illinois has no blanket AI disclosure requirement. However, Rule 1.4 (Communication) may require disclosure when AI use materially affects the representation, when the client inquires, or when confidential information will be processed by AI systems. Best practice is to address AI use in engagement letters.

Can I use ChatGPT for legal research in Illinois?

Yes, but with significant verification requirements. Illinois Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, which means you must independently verify all AI-generated research. Check every citation in Westlaw or Lexis, verify quoted language, and Shepardize cases. Never rely on unverified AI output for court filings.

What happens if I submit a brief with AI hallucinations in Illinois?

Submitting fabricated citations violates Rule 3.3 (Candor) and potentially Rule 1.1 (Competence). Consequences may include court sanctions, ARDC disciplinary proceedings (potentially including suspension or disbarment for egregious conduct), malpractice liability, and referral to the Client Protection Program if client harm occurred.

How should Illinois attorneys handle AI and client confidentiality?

Under Rule 1.6, you must protect client confidential information. Before using AI, review the platform’s privacy policy to understand data handling practices. Avoid inputting client-identifying information into public AI tools. Consider using enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy protections, or use hypotheticals and anonymization when possible.

Are there specific ARDC rules about AI use?

The ARDC has not issued AI-specific rules, but existing Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct apply fully to AI use. The ARDC will evaluate AI-related misconduct under established rules including competence (1.1), confidentiality (1.6), candor (3.3), and supervision (5.1, 5.3).

Resources
#

Illinois Resources
#

National Resources
#

Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Illinois?

Understanding how Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI use is essential for compliant integration of generative AI in your practice. The ARDC and Illinois courts are actively monitoring AI developments.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Arizona AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Arizona Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Regulatory Sandbox
Arizona has positioned itself as a national leader in legal innovation, becoming the first state to eliminate the prohibition on nonlawyer ownership of law firms and establishing a regulatory sandbox for legal technology companies. This forward-thinking approach extends to AI regulation, where Arizona balances innovation with robust client protections through its adaptation of existing ethics rules to emerging technologies.

Colorado AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·10 mins
Legal Ethics Colorado Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics State Bar Colorado Supreme Court
Colorado has emerged as a thoughtful leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association providing guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. The state’s approach emphasizes practical compliance while maintaining flexibility for attorneys to leverage AI’s benefits responsibly.

Connecticut AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Connecticut Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics CBA State Bar
Connecticut has taken a measured approach to artificial intelligence regulation in legal practice, focusing on applying existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI technologies while the state bar monitors developments. The Connecticut Bar Association and state courts have emphasized that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for any AI-generated work product, regardless of the technology’s sophistication.

Delaware AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··9 mins
Legal Ethics Delaware Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Court of Chancery Corporate Law State Bar
Delaware may be geographically small, but its outsized influence on American corporate law makes it a critical jurisdiction for AI ethics guidance. Home to the renowned Court of Chancery and the incorporation domicile for over 65% of Fortune 500 companies, Delaware attorneys practicing corporate, business, and chancery law must apply the highest standards when using artificial intelligence tools. The Delaware State Bar Association and the state’s courts have emphasized that attorneys remain fully responsible for AI-generated work product.

Indiana AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··9 mins
Legal Ethics Indiana Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Indiana State Bar ISBA
Indiana has been attentive to AI’s impact on legal practice, with the Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) and Indiana Supreme Court monitoring developments closely. While Indiana has not yet issued AI-specific ethics guidance, the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct provide a robust framework governing attorney use of artificial intelligence, imposing clear duties around competence, confidentiality, and honesty in tribunal proceedings.

Iowa AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·10 mins
Legal Ethics Iowa Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics ISBA Iowa State Bar
Iowa attorneys integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practices must navigate ethical obligations under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. While the Iowa State Bar Association has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the established ethical framework provides clear direction on competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision as applied to AI tool use.