An AI standing order from a Madison County judge shows how quickly courtroom expectations around artificial intelligence are changing. An order on AI use in civil cases was issued in September 2025 by Hon. Sarah D. Smith, Circuit Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit, and it sets detailed rules for how lawyers use AI in pleadings, discovery, depositions, evidence, and jury selection. In August 2026, she added a statement that explains how she uses AI in her own work, a step that is rare for a sitting judge.
Both documents build on the Illinois Supreme Court’s statewide AI policy, which took effect on January 1, 2025. That policy allows lawyers and judges to use AI, but the person who files the work remains fully responsible.
Judge Smith’s order goes further in several areas, and lawyers who appear before her now face requirements that the statewide policy does not spell out. Missed requirements can be met with sanctions, waived privilege, or excluded evidence. Other judges may follow with their own versions, so the rules could soon differ from one courtroom to the next.
The Statewide Policy Behind the AI Standing Order
The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence sets the baseline for every court in the state. Under the policy, AI use by litigants, lawyers, judges, and court staff is authorized when it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.
At the same time, the Rules of Professional Conduct apply fully to AI, and all users must review AI-generated content before submitting it. The policy also warns that AI tools must not compromise sensitive information, such as confidential communications or protected health information. Much of this approach was shaped by the Illinois Judicial Conference AI Task Force.
Judge Smith’s standing order on AI in civil cases cites the statewide policy as its starting point. It governs civil cases in her courtroom, not every courtroom in Madison County. It defines AI broadly to include tools like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Westlaw Precision, and Lexis+ AI. Simple formatting, translation, transcription, and grammar tools are excluded from that definition.
The order reminds lawyers that under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, the person who signs a filing is fully responsible for its content. The excuse that AI, staff, or anyone else prepared it will not be accepted, and filings with hallucinated case law or “ghost citations” may lead to sanctions.
What Judge Smith Requires in Discovery and at Trial
The order’s most detailed rules cover discovery, evidence, and trial. Many of these go beyond what the statewide policy requires, and several carry real consequences for lawyers who overlook them:
Discovery certification: Lawyers must file a signed certification that they personally reviewed and verified discovery responses prepared with AI help.
Disclosure to opposing counsel: If AI helped answer interrogatories or summarize client records, counsel must say so at the time of service and name the general type of tool.
Confidential data: Confidential, privileged, or protected health information may not be uploaded to AI tools that store or share data externally without adequate safeguards. A failure may be treated as a waiver of privilege.
Depositions: Witnesses may not use AI to generate answers. Lawyers who use AI during depositions must follow a checklist that includes confirming the tool does not record or store audio or video.
AI-generated evidence: AI-enhanced or AI-generated evidence must be disclosed by affidavit at least 90 days before trial. Experts who rely on AI must explain how the tool works.
Jury selection: AI tools used for juror profiling must be disclosed before voir dire. Using AI to target or influence jurors is prohibited.
Failure to follow the discovery rules can result in sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219.
Judge Smith Discloses AI Usage in “Statement of Judicial Practice”
Judge Smith’s August 2026 addendum turns the focus to the bench. Titled a “Statement of Judicial Practice,” it explains how she uses AI in her work. AI may be used as a productivity tool for outlining, editing, formatting, grammar, and summarizing materials, but it is not treated as a substitute for judicial decision-making.
Every order and ruling still reflects her independent judgment, and decision-making is never delegated to AI. The court verifies all legal authorities, quotations, and citations before they appear in an order. The same standards are applied to law clerks, judicial assistants, and other staff who work under her supervision.
In an interview with The National Law Review, Smith said a growing number of judicial orders with AI-generated citations prompted the addendum. Those errors mirror the fake AI citations that have already led to sanctions against lawyers. She also said it would be unfair to hold lawyers to standards she would not meet herself, and she believes transparency builds public confidence in the judiciary.
The article describes her order as one of the first of its kind in Illinois. Smith uses Westlaw CoCounsel, a tool recently made available in her jurisdiction, and does not enter confidential information into the AI tools she uses. She said that practice could be addressed in future amendments.
What the AI Standing Order Means for Illinois Lawyers
Judge Smith’s AI standing order shows how local rules can add new layers to statewide policy. The Illinois Supreme Court chose not to require AI disclosure in pleadings. Even so, one circuit judge now requires disclosure in discovery, evidence, and jury selection. Other judges may adopt their own approaches, and those approaches may not match. For lawyers, checking each judge’s standing orders is becoming routine in case preparation.
The core message stays consistent at every level of the court system: AI can support research, drafting, and organization, but lawyers remain responsible for every word they file. However, confidential client information needs protection no matter which tool is used.
Firms that track these rules, train staff on them, and verify AI output before filing are better positioned to avoid sanctions and malpractice claims. For coverage and risk management resources that keep pace with changing court rules, contact the lawyer malpractice coverage team at ISBA Mutual Insurance Company.
