In Illinois regulates the use of AI by judges and lawyers
The use of artificial intelligence in court is allowed even without disclosure of this fact, but subject to compliance with legal and ethical standards. At the same time, lawyers, judges and self-represented parties are responsible for the final product of their work.
On January 1, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence will come into effect.
The document states that the integration of AI into court operations is becoming more widespread, offering potential opportunities for increased efficiency and improved access to justice. However, it also raises critical questions about the authenticity, accuracy, bias, and integrity of court documents, evidence, and decisions. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies is important for the judiciary.
Courts will be closely monitoring AI technologies that may threaten due process, equal protection, or access to justice. Unconfirmed or intentionally misleading content generated by AI that promotes bias, harms litigants, or impedes truth and decision-making will not be tolerated.
The use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, court reporters, legal advisors, and court staff should not be discouraged and is permitted, provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of the use of AI in court filings is not mandatory.
The Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Ethics are fully applicable to the use of AI technologies. Lawyers, judges, and self-represented parties are responsible for the final product of their work. All users should carefully review AI-generated content before submitting it in a court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations. Before using any technology, including generative AI applications, users should understand both the general capabilities of AI and the features of specific tools.
The Court recognizes the need to use AI in a safe manner, respecting privacy laws and regulations. AI programs should not jeopardize sensitive information such as confidential communications, personal data, protected health information, justice and public safety data, security-related information, or data that violates judicial ethics standards or undermines public confidence.
The Illinois Supreme Court promises to regularly review the policy as these technologies evolve, prioritizing public confidence in the judicial system and the administration of justice. Judges remain ultimately responsible for their decisions, regardless of technological advances.
The Delaware Supreme Court reportedly issued a similar policy for judges and other judicial officials in October, and other state and federal courts have created committees and task forces to study the impact of AI on the judiciary.
Popular news
Guarantees of the practice of law
Impunity for public stigmatization of advocates violates the constitutional right to defense
The prohibition of identifying an advocate with a client is an international standard enshrined in the Law «On advocacy and legal practice». However, without accountability, this guarantee does not work, which poses a direct threat to the realization of the right to defense and the principle of adversarial proceedings.
Legislation
Inheritance of a share in joint property and more: advocates have made comments
In the event of the death of one of the subjects of joint shared ownership, the shares of each of the co-owners in the joint shared ownership shall be deemed equal, unless otherwise agreed between them, by law, or by a court decision.
Legislation
Implementation of the Roadmap: the composition of the working group ensures a high level of expertise
The composition of the Working Group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in relation to advocacy demonstrates the high institutional level of the experts involved by the Ukrainian National Bar Association in the formation of a package of decisions.
Legislation
UNBA initiatives to implement the Roadmap were supported by international experts
International experts who participated in the inaugural meeting of the Working Group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in advocacy and agreed to join it expressed their support for the initiative of the Ukrainian National Bar Association.
Legislation
How will the group responsible for implementing the Roadmap for advocacy operate?
The working group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in the area of advocacy will operate at several levels: plenary meetings as a platform for adopting framework decisions, a coordination bureau for compiling documents and calendar control, and thematic subgroups for preparing norms and their justification. International experts will verify the results against European standards and «red lines».
Legislation
Advocacy is a responsible entity, not a critic of reform — V. Gvozdiy
The Roadmap on the Rule of Law is not a basis for restructuring the model of advocacy, but a framework for verifying and improving the already European-oriented system. At the same time, part of the work has already been done, so further progress should be made in the form of coordinated and practical decisions.
Legislation
Vatras on the implementation of the Roadmap: only advocates should create their own destiny
Work on implementing the Roadmap in relation to advocacy should be based on the participation of the professional community itself, and key tasks should be structured in such a way as to avoid mixing processes that differ in content and procedure.
Legislation
Lidiya Izovitova outlined the approach to implementing the Roadmap for advocacy
The general approach to working on the implementation of the Roadmap on the Rule of Law in terms of reforming advocacy should not be based on «slogans», but rather on gathering facts, comparing them with standards, consulting with the professional community, and formulating norms for which participants are prepared to take responsibility.
Publications
Volodymyr Matsko Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations
Victoria Yakusha, Law and Business The anti-corruption vertical cannot «take care» of the Bar as an institution, - acting head of the HQDCB
Censor.net Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law
Ihor Kolesnykov A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER ON EXTENDED CONFISCATION IN LATVIA REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSETS OF…
Valentyn Gvozdiy WORKING IN A WAR ZONE
Lydia Izovitova Formula of perfection
Sergiy Vylkov Our judicial system is so built that courts do not trust advocates
Iryna Vasylyk Advocacy in the proclamation of Independence of Ukraine