AI rules by state · IL
AI Rules for Lawyers in Illinois 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- No
- Governing guidance
- IL Supreme Court AI Policy (2025)
- Sanctions on record
- Appellate sanction (2025)
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1, Comment 8
- AI / technology CLE
- No tech or AI requirement
Quick answer
Illinois does not require lawyers to disclose AI use. The Illinois Supreme Court's Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 2025, permits the use of AI and states that disclosure of AI use should not be required in pleadings. The lawyer remains fully accountable for the work product, which means every AI-generated citation must be verified before filing.
Ethics guidance
Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence
Effective January 1, 2025
Illinois addressed AI through a court policy rather than a bar ethics opinion. The Illinois Supreme Court announced its Policy on Artificial Intelligence in December 2024, effective January 1, 2025, and it applies to judges, court staff, and attorneys.
The policy permits the use of AI tools so long as that use complies with applicable legal and ethical standards. It places full responsibility for the work product on the person who submits it, and it provides that disclosure of AI use should not be required in pleadings. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has since published a practical guide to implementing AI, which is guidance rather than a binding rule.
Source: Illinois Supreme Court, Policy on Artificial Intelligence
Disclosure rules
Are Illinois lawyers required to disclose AI use?
Illinois does not require disclosure of AI use. The Supreme Court's policy states that disclosure of AI use should not be required in pleadings, and authorizes AI use that complies with legal and ethical standards.
Because the policy places full accountability on the filer, the operative obligation is verification rather than disclosure. Counsel should still review the assigned judge's standing order, since individual courts may set their own expectations.
Source: Illinois Supreme Court, Policy on Artificial Intelligence
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Illinois
Illinois courts have begun to act on fabricated AI citations. In a 2025 appellate matter, a lawyer who cited several nonexistent cases was ordered to return fees and pay a sanction, and was referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Trial-court matters in Cook County have likewise addressed fictitious AI-generated citations.
Source: Illinois court sanctions a lawyer for hallucinated cases (legal ethics coverage)
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1, Comment 8)
The competence duty in Illinois is Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, with Comment 8 on the benefits and risks of relevant technology. The Supreme Court's AI policy reinforces that a lawyer who uses AI remains fully accountable for the result, so competence here means understanding a tool's limits and verifying its output.
Source: Illinois Supreme Court, Policy on Artificial Intelligence
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Illinois
Illinois requires 30 hours of MCLE every two years, including professional-responsibility credit. There is no standalone AI or technology CLE requirement as of June 2026, though AI-focused programs can count toward the general requirement.
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Illinois lawyers
Illinois has told lawyers plainly that AI use need not be disclosed but that they remain fully accountable for the result, so verification of authority is the duty that matters most here.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
Illinois AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Illinois’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the Illinois state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo