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
Ukraine has signed the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer
Today, on 9 March, Ukraine's Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe Mykola Tochytskyi signed the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. This makes our country the 28th to sign this important international treaty.
European integration
«Freedom or security» — a false formula: speech by L. Izovitova at the conference of bar presidents
Is the state protecting society from crime today, or is it gradually destroying the rule of law under the guise of this fight? These alarming trends were outlined by the President of the UNBA, BCU Lidiya Izovitova, during her speech at the 54th European Conference of bar presidents.
Discussion
AI in advocacy and justice: ethics, regulation, limits of application
The Ukrainian National Bar Association held a roundtable discussion entitled «Artificial Intelligence in the цork of advocates: ethics, responsibility, legal process engineering». Participants discussed how artificial intelligence systems are already being used in the professional activities of advocates and where the ethical boundaries of what is permissible lie.
European integration
Researchers from the USA explain how shadow reports became a grant service
Shadow reporting often becomes a tool for the grant economy and competition for influence on policy. Such «expertise» replaces impartial analysis with the delegitimization of bar self-government, masks conflicts of interest, and is used as a channel for external pressure on the institution.
European integration
A translation of the report on advocacy presented to the European Parliament has been published
A translation of a research report on the Ukrainian advocacy profession in wartime, previously presented to the European Parliament in Brussels, has been published. The document is presented as a basis for discussion on the rule of law, Ukraine's European integration aspirations, and countering Russian disinformation in the legal sphere.
Legal defence of military personnel
How to formalize discharge from military service: practical workshop
The issue of discharge from military service remains one of the most pressing and complex for Ukrainian defenders and their families. Due to constant changes in legislation, military personnel often face refusals to discharge them from service or even to consider their reports.
Legislation
The Verkhovna Rada Committee criticized the format of the government working group on advocacy
The implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law (approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 475-r of May 14, 2025) in relation to advocacy raises the practical question of who exactly should prepare legislative changes and how.
Self-government
The BCU demands a review of the composition of the government working group on reforming the advocacy profession
The President of the UNBA, BCU Lidiya Izovitova, appealed to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to review the composition of the working group on improving legislation in the field of advocacy and legal practice.
Publications
Volodymyr Matsko Extradition during wartime: when the risks outweigh the request
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