The Illinois State Bar Association issued ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01 in August 2024, making Illinois one of the states with formal AI ethics guidance for attorneys. The opinion addresses competence, confidentiality, billing, and disclosure obligations when using generative AI tools.
Illinois is a significant jurisdiction — home to the third-largest legal market in the U.S. The ISBA opinion carries weight not just for Illinois practitioners but as a reference point for neighboring states that have not yet acted. For firms operating across the Midwest, this opinion sets the practical floor for AI ethics compliance.
What the Bar Says
ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01 (August 2024) addresses AI use across four key areas. On competence, the opinion holds that attorneys must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools before using them — including the risk of hallucinated citations and factual errors.
The opinion emphasizes that AI output is not legal work product until an attorney reviews, verifies, and takes responsibility for it. Attorneys cannot delegate professional judgment to AI tools. The duty of supervision under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 extends to managing AI workflows, even though AI is not a person — the principle of accountability applies.
Billing Implications
The ISBA opinion states that billing for AI-assisted work must be reasonable and transparent. This aligns with Rule 1.5 but adds AI-specific context: attorneys should not charge clients as if AI-assisted work required the same time and effort as fully manual work.
The opinion stops short of prescribing specific billing structures but signals that the reasonableness inquiry will consider whether AI was used. Firms should document AI use in billing records and be prepared to justify time entries where AI substantially reduced effort. Passing through AI tool subscription costs as an expense is permissible with client disclosure.
Confidentiality Rules
ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01 requires attorneys to ensure AI tools comply with Rule 1.6 confidentiality obligations. This means evaluating how AI platforms store, process, and potentially share client data before using them.
The opinion does not ban any specific tool by name but establishes that attorneys must conduct due diligence on AI vendors. Key questions include: Does the tool train on user inputs? Is data encrypted in transit and at rest? Can the vendor access input data? Enterprise-grade tools with data processing agreements and opt-out provisions for model training satisfy these requirements more easily than consumer tools.
What's Still Unclear
The ISBA opinion is advisory, not binding — the Illinois Supreme Court has not adopted formal AI rules. Several gaps remain: there is no specific framework for AI vendor vetting, no safe harbor for firms that follow the opinion's guidance, and no explicit standard for when AI disclosure to courts is required versus recommended.
Illinois courts have not yet adopted a uniform AI disclosure requirement for filings, though individual judges may require it. The opinion recommends client disclosure when AI is used but does not specify the form or timing. Watch for the Illinois Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism to potentially formalize these recommendations.
The Bottom Line: Illinois issued ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01 in August 2024, requiring reasonable billing, confidentiality compliance, and competent use of AI tools.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.