Illinois’ AI Policy Sets a New Standard for Courts Worldwide: Embracing Innovation vs. Erecting Barriers

1. Permissive Foundation with Ethical Guardrails

The policy’s foundational principle is striking: AI use “should not be discouraged” and is explicitly authorized for all court participants. This marks a decisive break from more restrictive approaches, acknowledging AI as a valuable tool while maintaining unwavering commitment to ethical standards. The policy achieves this balance through several key mechanisms:

• No mandatory disclosure requirements for AI use in pleadings
• Retention of existing professional conduct rules as the primary regulatory framework
• Clear accountability standards for final work product
• Emphasis on understanding both general AI capabilities and specific tools

2. Professional Responsibility and Accountability

Rather than creating new regulatory burdens, the policy leverages existing professional frameworks:

• Full application of Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct to AI use
• Maintenance of traditional accountability standards
• Required thorough review of AI-generated content
• Preservation of judicial responsibility for decisions

3. Security and Privacy Integration

The policy addresses confidentiality concerns through practical guidelines:

• Protection requirements for sensitive information
• Clear standards for handling confidential communications
• Specific provisions for personal identifying information
• Integration with existing privacy frameworks

Implications for Legal Practitioners For Lawyers

Strategic Implementation

• Freedom to integrate AI tools across practice areas
• Ability to innovate without burdensome disclosure requirements
• Opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining quality

Professional Development

• Need to understand AI capabilities and limitations
• Importance of tool-specific knowledge
• Ongoing education in emerging technologies

Risk Management

• Maintenance of traditional ethical obligations
• Focus on output verification rather than process documentation
• Integration with existing compliance frameworks

For Judges

Decision-Making Authority

• Retention of ultimate responsibility for decisions
• Ability to utilize AI tools for efficiency
• Maintenance of judicial independence

Technological Integration

• Support for AI use in appropriate contexts
• Focus on understanding tool capabilities
• Emphasis on continuous learning

Oversight Role

• Traditional standards for evaluating submissions
• No new burden for monitoring AI use
• Maintenance of existing quality standards

While the Illinois framework represents a progressive approach to AI regulation, its significance becomes even clearer when compared to more restrictive models being implemented elsewhere.

A Tale of Two Frameworks: Illinois vs. NSW

The stark contrast between the Illinois and New South Wales approaches illuminates a fundamental divide in how courts are approaching technological innovation. While both jurisdictions aim to protect the integrity of legal proceedings, their methodologies reflect markedly different philosophies about risk management and professional autonomy.

The Illinois framework begins with a presumption of professional competence, explicitly stating that AI use “should not be discouraged” and empowering legal professionals to make informed decisions about technology adoption. In contrast, the NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 takes a restrictive stance, implementing extensive controls and prohibitions that significantly limit AI integration opportunities.

This philosophical difference manifests in several crucial ways:

Professional Autonomy

Illinois maintains existing ethical frameworks while trusting legal professionals to use AI responsibly. NSW implements multiple layers of specific restrictions and requirements, including mandatory disclosures and prior court approval for many AI applications. This fundamentally affects how lawyers can integrate AI into their practice – while Illinois practitioners can focus on selecting and implementing effective tools, their NSW counterparts must navigate complex approval processes and documentation requirements.

Document Preparation

The jurisdictions’ approaches to AI use in document preparation particularly highlight their divergent philosophies. Illinois allows AI use across document types while maintaining professional responsibility for the final product. NSW specifically prohibits AI use in generating content for affidavits, witness statements, and character references, while imposing stringent verification requirements for other documents.

Judicial Implementation

For judges, these frameworks create vastly different operating environments. Illinois judges retain discretion in how they integrate AI tools into their work, bound by traditional ethical obligations. NSW judges face specific prohibitions on using AI for drafting or editing judgments, potentially limiting their ability to leverage efficiency-enhancing technologies.

Impact on Access to Justice

These contrasting approaches have significant implications for access to justice. The Illinois framework’s flexibility allows legal professionals to leverage AI tools to reduce costs and increase efficiency. The NSW restrictions, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently maintain higher barriers to access by limiting the adoption of cost-saving technologies.

The differences between these frameworks ultimately reflect different visions of how technology should integrate with legal practice. Illinois’s approach focuses on outcomes and professional responsibility, while NSW emphasizes process controls and specific prohibitions. This fundamental difference shapes not only how legal professionals must approach technology integration but also the future of access to justice in their respective jurisdictions.

Strategic Implementation

The Illinois framework provides legal professionals with unprecedented flexibility in AI adoption, but this freedom comes with the responsibility to implement these tools thoughtfully and systematically. Success requires a comprehensive strategy that addresses both the technical and ethical dimensions of AI integration.

At its core, effective implementation begins with developing a deep understanding of available AI tools and their appropriate applications. Legal professionals must invest time in learning not just how to use these technologies, but also their limitations and potential pitfalls. This knowledge foundation enables informed decisions about which tools to adopt and how to integrate them into existing workflows.

Risk mitigation remains paramount, but the Illinois approach shifts focus from bureaucratic compliance to meaningful safeguards. Rather than mandating specific documentation or disclosure requirements, the framework emphasizes the importance of robust internal review processes. Legal organizations should develop clear protocols for verifying AI-generated content, maintaining appropriate documentation, and ensuring consistent quality across all work products.

Professional development takes on renewed importance under this framework. Regular training and education ensure that all staff members understand both the technological capabilities and ethical implications of AI tools. This ongoing learning process should extend beyond technical training to include discussions of ethical considerations and professional responsibility.

The framework’s flexibility also demands vigilance in monitoring technological developments and evolving best practices. Legal organizations should establish regular review cycles to assess their AI implementation strategies, adapt to new technologies, and refine their approaches based on practical experience.

Future Implications

The Illinois framework represents more than just a set of guidelines; it provides a compelling vision for how courts can embrace technological innovation while upholding the fundamental values of our profession. By choosing a path that emphasizes responsible innovation over restrictive regulation, Illinois has created a model that could fundamentally reshape how jurisdictions worldwide approach AI integration in legal practice.

This approach’s significance lies in its ability to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining meaningful accountability. Rather than creating new bureaucratic hurdles, the framework leverages existing professional standards and ethical guidelines to govern AI use. This elegant solution allows for technological advancement without compromising the core values that have long guided legal practice.

Perhaps most importantly, the Illinois approach directly addresses the pressing challenge of access to justice. By removing unnecessary barriers to AI adoption, courts can enable legal professionals to leverage these tools to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and ultimately make legal services more accessible to underserved populations. This alignment of technological innovation with professional responsibility demonstrates how thoughtful regulation can serve both practical and ethical objectives.

The framework’s flexibility also positions the legal profession to adapt to future technological developments. Instead of attempting to predict and regulate specific technologies, Illinois has created a principles-based approach that can evolve alongside technological advancement. This forward-thinking strategy ensures that the framework remains relevant even as AI capabilities continue to expand.

As other jurisdictions grapple with AI regulation, the Illinois model offers valuable lessons about balancing innovation and oversight. Its success could inspire a broader shift away from restrictive approaches that risk stifling innovation, toward frameworks that embrace technology’s potential while maintaining appropriate professional standards. In this way, the Illinois framework may well serve as a blueprint for the future of legal practice in the age of artificial intelligence.

We are at a Crossroads: Which way do we want to go?

As the legal profession stands at this technological crossroads, the choices jurisdictions make about AI regulation will reverberate far beyond their geographical boundaries. The Illinois framework demonstrates that we can embrace AI’s transformative potential while preserving our profession’s core values–not through restrictive controls, but through thoughtful guidelines that trust in professional judgment and responsibility.

This approach may well become the template for global legal innovation, showing how courts can simultaneously protect the integrity of legal proceedings, enhance access to justice, and position our profession for the technological challenges ahead. While some jurisdictions may be tempted to follow NSW’s more restrictive path, the Illinois model offers a compelling alternative that aligns technological advancement with our fundamental professional obligations.

The path forward requires neither blind adoption nor fearful restriction, but rather a balanced approach that recognizes AI as what it truly is: a powerful tool that, when properly governed, can help fulfill our fundamental mission of making justice more accessible, efficient, and equitable for all.

About the Author

John Tredennick (JT@Merlin.Tech) is the CEO and founder of Merlin Search Technologies, a software company leveraging generative AI and cloud technologies to make investigation and discovery workflow faster, easier, and less expensive. Prior to founding Merlin, Tredennick had a distinguished career as a trial lawyer and litigation partner at a national law firm.

With his expertise in legal technology, he founded Catalyst in 2000, an international ediscovery technology company that was acquired in 2019 by a large public company.  Tredennick regularly speaks and writes on legal technology and AI topics and has authored eight books and dozens of articles. He has also served as Chair of the ABA’s Law Practice Management Section.