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

Indiana AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··9 mins
Legal Ethics Indiana Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Indiana State Bar ISBA
Table of Contents

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.

Current Regulatory Status
#

Indiana State Bar Association Position
#

As of 2025, the Indiana State Bar Association has not released formal ethics opinions specifically addressing generative AI. However, the ISBA has:

  • Published resources on technology in legal practice
  • Offered CLE programming on AI developments
  • Monitored national guidance from the ABA and other states
  • Recognized AI as a significant emerging issue for Hoosier lawyers

Key Resources:

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Applied to AI
#

Competence (Rule 1.1)
#

Indiana Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation, including “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

AI Competence Requirements:

  • Understand AI capabilities and limitations before using these tools
  • Recognize that generative AI systems can fabricate convincing but false content
  • Develop sufficient technical knowledge to evaluate AI outputs critically
  • Maintain independent legal judgment rather than deferring to AI
Indiana Technology Competence
Indiana Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 provides that lawyers must keep abreast of “changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” This technology competence mandate explicitly encompasses AI tools.

Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
#

Indiana Rule 1.6 prohibits lawyers from revealing information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or disclosure is otherwise permitted.

AI Confidentiality Analysis:

  • Evaluate AI platform data handling before inputting any client information
  • Review Terms of Service for data retention, sharing, and training policies
  • Consider whether AI provider access constitutes impermissible disclosure
  • Implement appropriate safeguards or avoid inputting confidential information

Due Diligence Questions:

  • Does the AI provider use inputs to train models?
  • Is data encrypted during transmission and storage?
  • Are inputs shared with third parties?
  • What data retention policies apply?
  • Can client data be deleted on request?

Communication (Rule 1.4)
#

Indiana Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed and explain matters sufficiently for clients to make informed decisions.

AI Disclosure Considerations:

  • Material AI use affecting representation may require disclosure
  • Fee implications of AI efficiency should be discussed
  • Client preferences regarding AI use should be respected
  • Informed consent may be needed for significant AI involvement

Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 3.3)
#

Indiana Rule 3.3 prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal or offering false evidence.

AI Verification Imperative:

  • All AI-generated case citations require independent verification
  • Quoted language must be checked against original sources
  • Legal propositions must be confirmed through authoritative research
  • Submitting AI hallucinations to courts violates candor duties

Supervisory Responsibilities (Rules 5.1 and 5.3)
#

Indiana Rules 5.1 and 5.3 impose supervision duties on law firm partners and supervising lawyers over other lawyers and nonlawyer assistants.

AI Supervision Framework:

  • Establish clear firm-wide AI use policies
  • Train all personnel on ethical AI implementation
  • Implement mandatory verification protocols for AI-assisted work
  • Monitor compliance through regular review procedures

Indiana Court Requirements
#

Indiana Supreme Court
#

The Indiana Supreme Court has not yet implemented mandatory AI disclosure requirements. However, attorneys should:

Monitor Developments:

  • Track Indiana Supreme Court administrative rules
  • Review local court rules for AI-related provisions
  • Check individual judge standing orders
  • Stay informed on Court of Appeals guidance

Recommended Practices:

  • Verify all citations regardless of court requirements
  • Maintain documentation of verification processes
  • Be prepared to certify human review of filings
  • Disclose AI use when directly relevant to proceedings

Indiana Trial Courts
#

Indiana’s circuit and superior courts may develop local practices regarding AI. Attorneys should:

  • Check local rules in each county where they practice
  • Inquire about judge preferences on AI disclosure
  • Follow any emerging local requirements

Federal Courts in Indiana
#

Northern District of Indiana
#

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Hammond, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Lafayette divisions) practitioners should:

  • Monitor Local Rules for AI amendments
  • Review assigned judge standing orders
  • Verify all citations independently
  • Be prepared to certify accuracy of filings

Southern District of Indiana
#

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis, Evansville, Terre Haute, New Albany divisions) requires similar vigilance:

  • Track Local Rule developments
  • Check individual judge requirements
  • Maintain verification documentation

Seventh Circuit Considerations
#

Indiana federal practitioners should follow Seventh Circuit guidance, which may address AI use in appellate practice. The Seventh Circuit has shown awareness of AI issues affecting legal proceedings.

Indiana Disciplinary Commission
#

Disciplinary Considerations
#

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission investigates attorney misconduct. AI-related conduct that could trigger investigation includes:

  • Submitting fabricated or unverified citations to courts
  • Breaching client confidentiality through AI platform use
  • Failing to supervise staff AI use
  • Billing improprieties related to AI assistance

Risk Mitigation:

  • Document reasonable compliance efforts
  • Maintain verification records for AI-assisted work
  • Implement and follow written AI policies
  • Address any errors promptly and transparently

Practical Compliance Framework for Indiana Attorneys
#

Indiana AI Compliance Checklist

Pre-Implementation Assessment:

  1. Evaluate AI platform security and data handling
  2. Review Terms of Service for confidentiality implications
  3. Assess platform compliance with Indiana Rule 1.6
  4. Develop written AI use policies for your firm

Client Relationship Management: 5. Consider disclosure obligations for material AI use 6. Discuss AI-related fee implications with clients 7. Document client communications about AI 8. Respect client preferences regarding AI involvement

During AI Use: 9. Avoid inputting client-identifying information without safeguards 10. Treat AI output as preliminary draft requiring verification 11. Maintain independent professional judgment 12. Document the verification process contemporaneously

Verification Protocol: 13. Check every case citation in Westlaw or Lexis 14. Verify quoted language against original sources 15. Confirm legal propositions through independent research 16. Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority 17. Review for logical consistency and factual accuracy

Billing Practices: 18. Bill only for time actually expended 19. Do not charge for hours saved by AI efficiency 20. Ensure fees remain reasonable under Rule 1.5 21. Maintain accurate, detailed time entries

Indiana-Specific Considerations
#

Indiana Legal Community#

Indiana’s legal community includes:

  • Strong state bar with active ethics education
  • Robust legal aid organizations serving underserved populations
  • Mix of urban and rural practice settings
  • Significant corporate and insurance defense practice

AI implementation should account for Indiana’s diverse practice environments while maintaining consistent ethical standards.

Access to Justice
#

Indiana has prioritized access to justice initiatives. AI could support these efforts by:

  • Increasing efficiency in legal aid practice
  • Reducing costs for underserved clients
  • Expanding capacity for pro bono work
  • Supporting attorneys in high-volume practice areas

However, AI use in access-to-justice contexts must maintain the same ethical rigor as any other practice setting.

Indiana’s Unified Court System
#

Indiana’s unified court system under the Supreme Court provides consistent statewide guidance. Attorneys should:

  • Monitor Supreme Court administrative orders
  • Track Indiana Court of Appeals developments
  • Review Indiana Lawyer and other bar publications for guidance
  • Participate in ISBA discussions on emerging issues

Professional Liability Considerations
#

Malpractice Insurance
#

Indiana attorneys should review malpractice coverage regarding AI:

Coverage Analysis:

  • Check for technology-related exclusions or limitations
  • Understand how AI errors might be categorized
  • Document reasonable care in AI implementation
  • Report potential claims promptly per policy requirements

Risk Management Best Practices:

  • Maintain detailed verification records
  • Document AI use policies and training provided
  • Keep evidence of independent review for all AI-assisted work
  • Consider discussing AI use with insurance carriers

Anticipated Developments
#

Expected Guidance
#

Indiana attorneys should monitor for:

  • Indiana State Bar Association ethics opinions on AI
  • Indiana Supreme Court administrative guidance
  • Disciplinary Commission statements on AI-related conduct
  • CLE programming on AI ethics compliance

Proactive Preparation
#

Until formal Indiana guidance emerges:

  • Apply existing Rules of Professional Conduct conservatively
  • Follow ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive guidance
  • Document compliance efforts thoroughly
  • Stay informed on developments in other jurisdictions

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Has Indiana issued specific AI guidance for attorneys?

Not yet. As of 2025, neither the Indiana State Bar Association nor the Indiana Supreme Court has released formal guidance specifically addressing generative AI. However, the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), and 3.3 (Candor), provide clear standards governing AI use. Attorneys should apply these existing rules while monitoring for Indiana-specific guidance.

Do Indiana courts require disclosure of AI use?

Indiana courts have not yet mandated AI disclosure. However, attorneys must ensure all citations and legal statements are accurate under Rule 3.3. Best practice is to verify all AI-generated content independently and be prepared to disclose AI use if questioned. Monitor both state and federal court rules in Indiana for developing requirements.

How should Indiana attorneys protect confidentiality when using AI?

Before inputting client information into AI systems, evaluate the platform’s security measures and data handling policies under Rule 1.6. Review Terms of Service to understand data retention, sharing, and training practices. Avoid inputting confidential client information into platforms that may use data for training or share it with third parties. Consider enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy protections.

What verification is required for AI-generated legal research in Indiana?

Under Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 3.3 (Candor), Indiana attorneys must verify all AI-generated citations, quotes, and legal propositions. This means checking every case in Westlaw, Lexis, or official reporters; verifying quoted language against original sources; Shepardizing or KeyCiting all authority; and confirming legal propositions through independent research before relying on them in any filing or client advice.

Can Indiana attorneys bill clients for AI-assisted work?

Yes, but only for time actually spent. Under Rule 1.5’s reasonableness standard, attorneys may bill for time drafting prompts, reviewing AI outputs, verifying research, and editing AI-generated content. However, billing for time saved by AI efficiency would be improper, if AI reduces a 2-hour task to 20 minutes, bill 20 minutes. Communicate AI billing practices to clients upfront.

What supervision duties apply to AI use in Indiana law firms?

Under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, partners and supervising lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure all lawyers and nonlawyers in the firm comply with professional conduct rules when using AI. This requires establishing AI use policies, providing training on ethical AI implementation, implementing verification protocols, and monitoring compliance. Treat AI supervision comparably to supervising a new attorney or paralegal.

Resources
#

Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Indiana?

While Indiana has not yet issued AI-specific guidance, existing Rules of Professional Conduct impose clear obligations on attorneys using artificial intelligence. Understanding how Indiana ethics rules apply to AI use is essential for maintaining compliance and managing professional liability risk.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Illinois AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

··8 mins
Legal Ethics Illinois Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics ISBA ARDC State Bar
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.

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.

Alabama AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

·9 mins
Legal Ethics Alabama Legal Ethics AI Generative AI Attorney Ethics Alabama State Bar
Alabama attorneys are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into their legal practices, from contract review to legal research. While the Alabama State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct establish clear ethical boundaries that govern all technology use, including generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.

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.