IJC AI Task Force Shapes Illinois Court AI Policy
The IJC AI Task Force spent nearly two years studying how artificial intelligence should function inside Illinois courtrooms. Its work led directly to the Illinois Supreme Court's Policy on Artificial Intelligence. That policy took effect January 1, 2025, and applies to everyone who touches a court filing. For Illinois lawyers, the timing matters. Generative AI tools have moved from novelty to daily use. Legal research platforms already run on AI, and drafting assistants now generate first-pass briefs.
That convenience carries risk. Courts nationwide have seen AI-generated hallucinations slip into filings, including cases that don't exist and quotes that were never said. Illinois wanted rules in place before those problems multiplied here. The task force's recommendations, the policy's treatment of disclosure, and real incidents in Illinois courts show where the rules stand today. None of this constitutes legal advice. It reflects public record and public statements from those who helped shape the policy.
The IJC AI Task Force Behind Illinois' New Policy
The Illinois Judicial Conference formed the IJC AI Task Force in early 2024. Judges, attorneys, court staff, and other stakeholders filled its ranks. Members split into three subcommittees covering policy, education, and customer service. Each group examined existing court rules to see whether AI required new amendments.
The task force also drew on the National Center for State Courts' AI Resource Center, according to a column written by the co-chairs. Members attended seminars and exchanged research papers along the way. That work shaped the final recommendations. The Illinois Supreme Court approved the resulting policy on December 18, 2024. Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis said existing court rules remain sufficient to govern AI use for now, though the court will keep reassessing as the technology evolves.
How the IJC AI Task Force Approached Ethics and Disclosure
The IJC AI Task Force spent significant time on the Code of Judicial Conduct. Members asked whether generative AI changes how judges should explain their decisions. The task force concluded the code "applies fully to the use of AI technologies." That conclusion produced one of the policy's core lines: Judges remain ultimately responsible for their decisions, irrespective of technological advancements. Law clerks have long produced first drafts for judges, and the task force treated AI-assisted drafts the same way.
Notably, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 also received close attention. The task force determined the rule already gives courts authority to address AI inaccuracies, including hallucinated citations and deepfakes. No new rule was needed. Disclosure sparked real debate. The task force weighed whether lawyers should flag AI use in every pleading, but decided against a disclosure requirement, since AI already runs quietly through spell check and legal research software. Singling out generative AI risked confusion, according to Chief Justice Theis's column with the co-chairs.
The policy still requires lawyers, judges, and self-represented litigants to understand any tool before relying on it, and it protects confidential and personally identifying information from exposure through AI applications. Together, these provisions place accountability on the person using the tool. The use of AI is expected and permitted, but responsibility for accuracy remains with the human who signs the document.
Illinois Lawyers Face Real AI Hallucination Risks
AI hallucinations aren't theoretical for Illinois courts. A brief filed in an Illinois courtroom cited a case that didn't exist. He checked two research systems, then visited the courthouse library to confirm it. The case wasn't there. The incident happened months after the Illinois policy took effect. It shows why the task force built in flexibility rather than rigid rules.
However, the problem extends well beyond Illinois. A database tracked by a senior research fellow at HEC Paris counted 518 documented cases of hallucinated AI content in U.S. courts since the start of 2025. At least 10 states and the District of Columbia have issued formal ethics guidance, and at least 11 states, including Illinois, have adopted court policies or conduct rules.
Some states have gone further with legislation. For instance, Louisiana now requires attorneys to exercise reasonable diligence in verifying AI-generated evidence. Meanwhile, California lawmakers have proposed a similar verification requirement. Experts point to the common thread that AI often presents false information with confidence, which makes hallucinations easy to miss without careful review. That confidence gap places the burden on the lawyer reviewing the output first.
Key Takeaways from the IJC AI Task Force Policy
IJC AI Task Force research now underpins Illinois’ approach to AI in the courts. The resulting policy doesn't ban generative AI, nor does it require disclosure. Instead, it holds lawyers, judges, and litigants accountable for whatever they submit, whether a human or a machine drafted it first. That standard puts the pressure on individual diligence. Every citation needs verification, and every AI-assisted draft needs careful human review before filing.
Illinois isn't alone in confronting this challenge. States nationwide are building similar guardrails, from ethics opinions to new legislation. The goal is straightforward: Let AI support legal work without undermining accuracy or trust in the courts. For Illinois lawyers, the practical takeaway is simple. Understand any AI tool before using it, verify anything it produces, and treat AI outputs the way you'd treat a draft from a junior associate (useful, but never final without your own review).
Firms that build these habits into their workflow reduce exposure to costly mistakes; ISBA Mutual works with Illinois lawyers to strengthen exactly this kind of risk management. To discuss your firm’s AI practices, contact the professional liability and risk management team at ISBA Mutual.
