Does Indiana require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No

Does Indiana require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. Indiana has no court rule, no bar ethics opinion, and no pending rulemaking addressing AI disclosure in legal practice. No formal guidance of any kind has been identified. Indiana is in the quietest category of states on this issue — no task force, no commission, no public study.

What makes Indiana's position interesting is its neighbor. Illinois took the unusual step of signaling an anti-disclosure stance, with its approach suggesting that mandatory AI disclosure requirements may do more harm than good. Indiana hasn't adopted that position either — it simply hasn't engaged with the question at all. For managing partners, this silence creates an ambiguous compliance environment that existing ethics rules fill by default.

What Indiana Doesn't Have

The list of what Indiana hasn't done on AI regulation is straightforward: no court rule requiring AI disclosure, no Indiana State Bar Association ethics opinion on AI, no judicial task force or commission studying AI in courts, no individual judge standing orders that have been widely publicized, no pending legislation addressing AI in legal practice, and no informal bar guidance or blog recommendations. Indiana is genuinely in the 'no action' category. For a state with roughly 18,000 active attorneys and a substantial legal market centered in Indianapolis, this level of inaction is notable.

Existing Ethics Framework: What Fills the Gap

Indiana's Rules of Professional Conduct follow the ABA Model Rules, creating the same baseline obligations that apply in every Model Rules jurisdiction. Rule 1.1 (competence) requires understanding AI tools before using them. Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) prohibits citing nonexistent cases. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) governs data handling with AI platforms. Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) makes attorneys accountable for AI outputs. ABA Formal Opinion 512 provides the interpretive framework that connects these rules to AI use scenarios. It's not Indiana-specific guidance, but it's the most authoritative analysis available and maps directly onto Indiana's rules.

The Illinois Factor: A Neighbor's Anti-Disclosure Stance

Illinois, Indiana's most significant neighbor for legal practice, has taken what amounts to an anti-disclosure position — suggesting that singling out AI for mandatory disclosure requirements is unnecessary or counterproductive when existing ethics rules already cover the relevant obligations. Indiana hasn't adopted this view, but Illinois's stance may influence how Indiana eventually approaches the question. If your firm practices in both states (common for firms in the Indianapolis-Chicago corridor), Illinois's position may reduce the likelihood that Indiana adopts aggressive disclosure requirements. But it's equally possible that Indiana charts its own course. Don't assume Indiana will follow Illinois.

Federal Court Context: The Seventh Circuit

Indiana falls within the Seventh Circuit, alongside Illinois and Wisconsin. Federal courts in Indiana — the Northern District (Hammond/South Bend/Fort Wayne) and the Southern District (Indianapolis) — operate under their own rules and individual judge requirements. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, sets the appellate framework. Federal judges in Indiana may issue AI-related standing orders independent of any state court action. For firms that practice in both Indiana state and federal courts, federal requirements will likely arrive before state requirements. Track individual judge standing orders in the districts where you practice.

Building Compliance Without State-Specific Guidance

When your state provides no guidance at all, you build your own framework from the materials available. Start with ABA Opinion 512 as your primary reference. Implement citation verification as a firm-wide, non-negotiable practice — no AI-generated cite goes into a filing without human confirmation. Create a written AI usage policy covering approved tools, prohibited inputs (client confidential information without safeguards), required review steps, and training requirements. Document everything. If Indiana eventually adopts rules, you want a track record of proactive compliance. If Indiana follows Illinois's anti-disclosure approach, your verification protocols still protect you from the risks that exist regardless of disclosure requirements.

The Bottom Line: Indiana has zero AI-specific guidance for attorneys — no rule, no opinion, no task force — but existing ethics rules create real obligations, and neighboring Illinois's anti-disclosure stance may influence (but shouldn't determine) how Indiana firms approach AI compliance.