Judge Gabriel Fuentes

Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes was one of the first judges in the Northern District of Illinois to issue an AI standing order, and his approach has evolved significantly since he first addressed the issue. His latest revision, updated in December 2024, aligns with the Illinois Supreme Court's new statewide AI policy—making his courtroom a bellwether for how AI regulation is developing in the Seventh Circuit.

What makes Judge Fuentes's story instructive is the evolution itself. He started with a disclosure-focused order, then refined it as he learned what worked and what didn't. Attorneys filing before him today are dealing with a judge who has thought deeply about AI in litigation and adjusted his approach based on real-world experience.

The Evolution of Judge Fuentes's AI Order

Judge Fuentes was among the earliest N.D. Ill. judges to address AI in a standing order. His initial approach required disclosure of generative AI use but didn't impose a certification requirement, relying instead on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to ensure accuracy. By December 2024, he revised his standing order to align with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025. Rather than maintaining his own varying approach, he now directs counsel to that statewide policy as an advisory appendix to his standing order. This evolution shows a judge who is pragmatic enough to adjust his approach as the landscape changes.

The Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy

The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, which Judge Fuentes's revised order incorporates, establishes several key principles. First, the use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, and court staff may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is encouraged. Second, AI technologies must not jeopardize due process, equal protection, or access to justice. Third, the courts will not tolerate unsubstantiated or deliberately misleading AI-generated content. Fourth, AI applications must not compromise sensitive information including confidential communications, personal identifying information, protected health information, or security-related information. This is a notably balanced policy—pro-AI but with clear guardrails.

What This Means for Attorneys Filing Before Judge Fuentes

Under Judge Fuentes's current framework, AI use is permitted and even encouraged, but attorneys must ensure their AI-assisted work doesn't introduce inaccuracies, compromise confidentiality, or undermine the integrity of proceedings. The shift from a judge-specific disclosure requirement to adoption of the statewide policy means the obligations are now broader and more principled. Rather than checking a disclosure box, attorneys need to ensure their AI usage aligns with the substantive standards of due process, accuracy, and data protection. It's a more sophisticated framework—and more difficult to game.

Practical Compliance Steps

Step 1: Read both Judge Fuentes's current standing order and the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence. They work together. Step 2: AI use is permitted but must comply with Rule 11 and the policy's substantive standards. Verify every citation through traditional research tools. Step 3: Don't enter confidential client information, PII, PHI, or other sensitive data into public AI tools—the Illinois policy specifically addresses data protection. Step 4: Be prepared to discuss your AI usage if the court inquires. Judge Fuentes has been public about his interest in how attorneys use these tools. Step 5: Keep records of your AI verification process as part of your standard workflow.

Why Judge Fuentes Pulled Back His Original Order

Judge Fuentes has publicly discussed why he revised his AI order. His original approach—a judge-specific disclosure requirement—created complications when different judges in the same district had different rules. The patchwork of individual orders was confusing for attorneys and didn't scale well. By adopting the Illinois Supreme Court's statewide policy, he created a framework that's consistent across courts, principled rather than procedural, and adaptable as AI technology evolves. This evolution should reassure attorneys that Judge Fuentes is approaching AI pragmatically. He's not trying to catch attorneys doing something wrong—he's trying to create a framework that makes AI use work for everyone.

The Bottom Line: Judge Fuentes's AI order has evolved from a judge-specific disclosure requirement to alignment with the Illinois Supreme Court's statewide AI policy. AI use is encouraged but must comply with due process, accuracy, and data protection standards. Read both the standing order and the state policy before filing.