In Illinois regulates the use of AI by judges and lawyers

Advocacy
12:38 Mon 30.12.24 409 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

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 13.12.25 209
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 12.12.25 132
BCU has identified 12 areas for implementing the Roadmap for advocacy

Self-government

BCU has identified 12 areas for implementing the Roadmap for advocacy

During its meeting on December 12, the Bar Council of Ukraine considered the Roadmap on the Rule of Law, approved by Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 475-r dated May 14, 2025. The document provides for the development and adoption of a draft law on improving the legal regulation of advocacy by the fourth quarter of 2026.

13:34 Fri 12.12.25 173
The Ombudsman acknowledged the problem of violation of the human right to legal aid in the TCC

Guarantees of the practice of law

The Ombudsman acknowledged the problem of violation of the human right to legal aid in the TCC

The Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for human rights Dmytro Lubinets confirmed the existence of a problem with ensuring the constitutional right to professional legal assistance in territorial recruitment and social support centers.

19:06 Thu 11.12.25 174
Why preventive measures have turned into preventive punishment in Ukraine: round table discussion

Discussion

Why preventive measures have turned into preventive punishment in Ukraine: round table discussion

The European approach, enshrined in the CPC, provides for detention as an exceptional preventive measure: courts must prove the impossibility of milder alternatives and carefully assess the risks. In practice, however, it is increasingly being applied almost automatically, eroding standards of freedom.

18:44 Fri 05.12.25 125
The UNBA presented a report on violations of advocates' rights in the TCC

Guarantees of the practice of law

The UNBA presented a report on violations of advocates' rights in the TCC

The Committee for the protection of advocate's rights and guarantees of legal practice of the UNBA has prepared a consolidated report on violations of advocate's professional rights and guarantees of legal practice by territorial recruitment and social support centers for the period from 2022 to the first half of 2025.

12:15 Tue 02.12.25 450
Statement by the UNBA Committee regarding manipulative journalistic material

Self-government

Statement by the UNBA Committee regarding manipulative journalistic material

Statement by the UNBA Committee on information policy and interaction with the media regarding manipulative journalistic material aimed at discrediting the advocacy institution.

11:26 Thu 27.11.25 194
Dispute over fees: BCU explained the possibility of disclosing information subject to advocate-client privilege

Guarantees of the practice of law

Dispute over fees: BCU explained the possibility of disclosing information subject to advocate-client privilege

In certain cases, an advocate may be exempt from the obligation to maintain attorney-client privilege. The Bar Council of Ukraine considered a practical situation in which an advocate needed to transfer documents prepared while working with a previous client to a colleague in order to protect his own rights in court.

10:58 Tue 18.11.25 106

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

Оберіть файл