Skip to main content
New: Introducing Irys Workbench, agents to take up the work for you. See Workbench
Book a DemoStart Free Trial

AI rules by state · IL

AI Rules for Lawyers in Illinois 2026

By Sabih Siddiqi, founder of Irys and former BigLaw litigatorVerified as of September 2026
AI disclosure required?No
Sanctions on recordAppellate sanction (2025)
Competence ruleRule 1.1, Comment 8
AI / technology CLENo 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 acted on fabricated AI citations, and trial-court matters in Cook County have likewise addressed fictitious AI-generated citations.

The pattern continued through 2026, including two matters that combined a monetary penalty with a bar referral: Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission (Illinois Court of Appeals, July 2026), a $15,000 fine, and Morgan Cole v. Hobby Town Unlimited, Inc. (C.D. Illinois, September 2026). Other 2026 Illinois matters drew admonishments or orders to show cause without a monetary penalty.

Sources: Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462 (July 28, 2026), opinion (Illinois Courts), AI Hallucination Cases Database (court orders collected by Damien Charlotin)

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 at least 6 hours of professional-responsibility credit. There is no standalone AI or technology CLE requirement as of September 2026, though AI-focused programs can count toward the general requirement.

Source: Illinois MCLE Board, attorney MCLE 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

No. The Illinois Supreme Court's Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 2025, states that AI disclosure should not be required in pleadings. The policy permits AI use that complies with legal and ethical standards while placing full accountability for the work product on the filer.

A court policy, effective January 1, 2025, that governs AI use by judges, court staff, and attorneys. It permits AI tools that comply with legal and ethical standards, does not require disclosure in pleadings, and holds the filer fully responsible for the work product.

Yes. In a 2025 appellate matter, a lawyer who cited nonexistent cases was ordered to return fees, pay a sanction, and was referred to the disciplinary commission. Trial courts in Cook County have also addressed fabricated AI citations.

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 the lawyer remains accountable for AI-assisted work.

No. Illinois requires 30 MCLE hours every two years, including professional-responsibility credit. There is no standalone AI or technology requirement, though AI programs can count toward the total.

Legal AI rules in nearby states

Practising across state lines? Compare Illinois’s rules with its neighbors.

AI rules in MichiganAI rules in MinnesotaAI rules in MissouriAI rules in Ohio

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 September 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