Judge Iain Johnston

Judge Iain Johnston took the opposite approach from most federal judges on AI—and he did it deliberately. While judges across the country were issuing standing orders requiring AI disclosure certificates and sworn declarations, Judge Johnston in the Northern District of Illinois issued an order that simply reminds attorneys of their existing Rule 11 and Rule 26(g) obligations. No additional certification. No special disclosure form.

This wasn't an oversight. Judge Johnston has been publicly vocal about why he thinks onerous AI standing orders are unworkable and counterproductive. He believes the existing rules are sufficient to police AI use, and that piling on additional requirements creates more confusion than compliance.

Judge Johnston's Deliberate Minimalist Approach

Judge Johnston issued his AI-related standing order because attorneys were questioning him about his views on generative AI in filings. Rather than joining the wave of disclosure-heavy orders, he took a deliberately minimalist approach: reminding those before the court of their existing duties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 26(g), without imposing additional disclosure or certification requirements. He was concerned that more onerous standing orders were becoming the norm despite being, in his view, unworkable and not fully thought through. He believes he was one of the first judges to push back against the trend.

Why Judge Johnston Thinks AI Orders Are Unworkable

Judge Johnston's critique of AI standing orders is substantive, not dismissive. He argues that requiring specific AI disclosure creates definitional problems—where do you draw the line between AI-assisted research and traditional research tools that increasingly incorporate AI? He also questions whether disclosure requirements actually prevent the problems they're designed to address. An attorney willing to submit unverified AI-generated content is unlikely to be deterred by a certification requirement. The existing obligation under Rule 11—that every statement of law is warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument—already covers AI-generated errors. Adding a separate AI layer is redundant.

What Rule 11 and Rule 26(g) Already Require

Rule 11(b) requires that every factual assertion has evidentiary support and every legal contention is warranted by existing law. Rule 26(g) requires that discovery responses are complete, accurate, and not unreasonably burdensome. These rules don't care how the error was made—whether an attorney manually cited a wrong case or used ChatGPT to generate a fabricated citation, the violation is the same. Judge Johnston's position is that these rules provide all the enforcement mechanism needed. Attorneys who submit AI-hallucinated citations are violating Rule 11 regardless of whether they disclosed their AI use. The disclosure adds a procedural layer without adding substantive protection.

Practical Implications for Filing Before Judge Johnston

Step 1: Don't ignore AI verification just because there's no separate certification requirement. Rule 11 still applies in full force. Step 2: Verify every citation through traditional legal databases. The absence of a disclosure mandate doesn't reduce the accuracy standard. Step 3: If you use AI, maintain internal records of your verification process. If a citation is challenged, you need to demonstrate due diligence. Step 4: Read the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, which Judge Johnston's colleague Judge Fuentes has incorporated by reference. While Judge Johnston hasn't adopted it formally, it reflects the state's approach. Step 5: Treat Rule 11 compliance as your AI policy—it's the framework Judge Johnston relies on.

How Judge Johnston Fits Into the National Debate

Judge Johnston represents the skeptic wing of the judicial AI standing order movement. While judges like Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) and Araceli Martinez-Olguin (N.D. Cal.) have issued detailed, enforceable AI orders, Johnston argues that the existing rules handle AI just fine. His position has gained support from legal scholars who argue that AI-specific rules risk becoming obsolete as the technology evolves, while general professional obligation rules are flexible enough to adapt. Whether you agree with his philosophy or not, filing before Judge Johnston means understanding that your AI obligations are defined by Rule 11, not by a separate AI framework.

The Bottom Line: Judge Johnston deliberately rejected onerous AI disclosure requirements in favor of existing Rule 11 and Rule 26(g) obligations. But don't mistake minimalist requirements for minimal expectations—he fully expects attorneys to verify AI-generated content, and Rule 11 violations carry the same consequences regardless of the source of the error.