In Illinois regulates the use of AI by judges and lawyers

Advocacy
12:38 Mon 30.12.24 437 Reviews
Print

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

UNBA initiatives to implement the Roadmap were supported by international experts

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.

14:34 Wed 07.01.26 119
How will the group responsible for implementing the Roadmap for advocacy operate?

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».

15:35 Tue 06.01.26 114
Advocacy is a responsible entity, not a critic of reform — V. Gvozdiy

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.

19:31 Fri 02.01.26 102
BCU: NACP initiatives regarding advocacy are unconstitutional interference

Self-government

BCU: NACP initiatives regarding advocacy are unconstitutional interference

The Bar Council of Ukraine has condemned the initiatives to reform the advocacy proposed by the National Agency for Corruption Prevention as direct, gross, and systematic interference by the executive branch in the activities of an independent constitutional institution.

14:21 Wed 31.12.25 130
UNBA program for implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law published

Self-government

UNBA program for implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law published

In order to ensure the implementation of measures set out in the Roadmap on the Rule of Law, the Bar Council of Ukraine approved a program for its implementation in relation to the reform of advocacy.

14:56 Tue 23.12.25 146
The results of the CISA cannot be used in disciplinary proceedings against advocates – BCU

Professional Conduct

The results of the CISA cannot be used in disciplinary proceedings against advocates – BCU

Materials obtained through covert investigative (search) activities involving interference in private communications cannot be transferred or used in disciplinary proceedings against advocates. This is because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow investigators or prosecutors to use such materials outside of criminal proceedings.

17:19 Sat 13.12.25 103
Access to advocate contacts in URAU has been restored

URAU

Access to advocate contacts in URAU has been restored

The Bar Council of Ukraine has opened up public access to data from the Unified Register of Advocates of Ukraine, which was closed at the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. The decision was made at a meeting on December 12–13.

16:59 Sat 13.12.25 283
Members of the QDCB are not required to submit declarations - BCU

Self-government

Members of the QDCB are not required to submit declarations - BCU

Bar Council of Ukraine examined the legal status of members of bar self-government bodies and found that they are not required to submit declarations of persons authorized to perform functions of state or local self-government.

18:07 Fri 12.12.25 168

Надішліть файл із текстом публікації у форматі *.doc, фотографію за тематикою у розмірі 640х400 та Ваше фото.

Оберіть файл