AI ethics guide · Illinois
Can a Illinois lawyer put client documents into an AI tool?
What the Supreme Court’s AI policy says about client confidentiality, and the other duties that come with using AI.
Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of the Supreme Court’s AI policy, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the Illinois bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.
| Document | Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence |
|---|---|
| Issued by | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Date | Announced December 18, 2024; effective January 1, 2025 |
| Status | Court policy, applying the existing Rules of Professional Conduct |
The short answer
Yes. Illinois’ Supreme Court has said AI use is authorized, and shouldn’t be discouraged, as long as it complies with legal and ethical standards. One of those standards is explicit: AI applications must not compromise sensitive information, such as confidential communications, personal identifying information or protected health information.
What it says about confidentiality
Illinois took a different route from most states. Instead of a bar opinion, the Supreme Court issued a policy, effective January 1, 2025, that covers litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys and court staff. Its core message is that the existing Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct apply fully to AI.
On confidentiality it is direct. AI applications must not compromise sensitive information, including confidential communications, personally identifying information and protected health information. For a lawyer, that turns into a question about each tool: what happens to what you put in?
The policy is also notable for what it doesn’t require. It says disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading. The duty is to review AI-generated content thoroughly for accuracy before submitting it in any court proceeding.
The Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct apply fully to the use of AI technologies.
Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence
The other duties it covers
| Review | Everyone who uses AI must thoroughly review its output before submitting it in any court proceeding. |
|---|---|
| Competence | Understand both AI in general and the specific tool you are using. |
| Disclosure | Disclosing AI use in a pleading should not be required. |
In practice
- Before using any AI tool on a matter, confirm it won’t compromise confidential communications, PII or PHI.
- Review every piece of AI-assisted work before it’s filed.
- Don’t add AI-disclosure boilerplate to pleadings on the assumption it’s required. Check the specific court’s rules instead.
- Train staff too. The policy covers everyone in the court system who uses AI.
How this compares with ABA Formal Opinion 512
The ABA's national opinion requires a client's informed consent before information relating to the representation goes into a self-learning AI tool, and says boilerplate consent in an engagement letter isn't enough. Read the Opinion 512 summary and firm checklist.
Keep client documents on a server that’s only yours
A Private AI Workspace runs on a GPU server ordered for one firm. Your documents, the AI model and the database stay on it, it never trains on your files, and answers cite the page they came from. It costs $499 a month, flat.
Sources
- Illinois Supreme Court — Policy on Artificial Intelligence (PDF)
- Illinois Courts — Illinois Supreme Court announces policy on artificial intelligence
Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll fix it.
Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of the Supreme Court’s AI policy, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the Illinois bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.