Illinois

Does Illinois require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No — and the state's highest court explicitly recommends against it. The Illinois Supreme Court's AI policy, effective January 2025, takes the most permissive approach in the country: it explicitly recommends that judges NOT require mandatory AI disclosure from attorneys.

This isn't a gap in the rules. It's a deliberate policy choice. Illinois concluded that existing professional conduct rules adequately govern attorney AI use and that mandatory disclosure requirements create unnecessary burden without meaningful benefit. If you're a managing partner in Illinois, this is the most relaxed AI compliance environment in any major state.

What the Illinois Supreme Court Policy Says

The policy, issued by the Illinois Supreme Court and effective January 2025, provides guidance to all Illinois courts on AI in the legal system. Its most distinctive feature: an explicit recommendation that trial judges should not impose mandatory AI disclosure requirements on attorneys. The court reasoned that existing Rules of Professional Conduct — covering competence, candor, and supervision — already address the risks of AI-assisted legal work. Adding a disclosure layer would create compliance friction without improving outcomes.

The Exception: Individual Judge Orders

Despite the Supreme Court's recommendation, at least four individual Illinois judges have issued standing orders requiring AI disclosure in their courtrooms. The Supreme Court policy is guidance, not a prohibition — judges retain discretion over their own courtrooms. This creates a narrow but real compliance risk. Attorneys filing before one of these judges must comply with the local standing order regardless of the statewide policy. The practical advice: always check for individual judge standing orders, even in Illinois.

Who the Policy Applies To

The policy addresses the entire Illinois court system — judges, court staff, and by extension the attorneys who practice before them. For judges, it provides guidance on when and how AI tools may be used in judicial decision-making. For court staff, it sets expectations about AI in court operations. For attorneys, the key takeaway is what the policy doesn't do: it doesn't create any new obligations beyond existing professional conduct rules. No new certifications, no new disclosure forms, no new compliance checkboxes.

How Illinois Differs from Federal Court AI Rules

The contrast is sharp. Federal courts in Illinois — particularly the Northern District (Chicago) — have adopted or are considering AI disclosure requirements through local rules and individual standing orders. An attorney might file a motion in Cook County Circuit Court with no AI disclosure obligation, then walk across the street to the Dirksen Federal Building and need a full AI certification. Managing partners with both state and federal practices in Illinois need to maintain two different compliance standards despite operating in the same city.

Practical Implications for Illinois Firms

Illinois firms have the lightest compliance burden of any major state, but that doesn't mean zero burden. First, you still own the accuracy of your work product — hallucinated citations will get you sanctioned under existing candor rules regardless of disclosure requirements. Second, maintain a list of judges in your practice areas who have issued individual AI standing orders. Third, if your firm operates across state lines, don't let Illinois's permissive approach lull you into ignoring stricter requirements elsewhere. Fourth, document your AI verification processes anyway. The Illinois approach could change, and firms with existing documentation will transition smoothly.

The Bottom Line: Illinois is the most AI-permissive major state — the Supreme Court explicitly recommends against mandatory disclosure, though four individual judges still require it in their courtrooms, so check standing orders before every filing.