Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping the legal profession. Used thoughtfully, AI can streamline research, improve efficiency, and support better decision-making for lawyers and their clients. But like any tool that touches attorney work product, it must be used with extreme care. Lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the work they deliver regardless of how much technology is involved.
Hallucinations & Deepfakes
The rush toward implementation of AI has been laid with traps for the unwary, and numerous attorneys (and even a few judges) have been subjected to professional discipline for their use of AI. Several instances involve AI’s notable tendency to “hallucinate” data, to generate completely fabricated responses to inputted prompts.
For those not fastidiously reviewing AI’s output, these hallucinations have harmful consequences when this material is included in court filings. Courts in Wyoming, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania have sanctioned lawyers for submitting briefs containing citations to cases that simply do not exist. Whole case names, citations, and even purported quotations were simply made up by AI tools, included in briefs, and submitted by counsel to the court without verification or review.
Even more concerning, a California judge recently dismissed a case in its entirety due to her concerns that the plaintiffs submitted an AI-generated deepfake video as evidence. This event, which seems to have involved some level of intentionality rather than negligence, goes beyond sloppiness or lack of care and is also an issue that the legal profession must contend with.
Regulation of AI in the Law
The use of AI in the practice of law has become an issue of national concern: the Senate Judiciary Committee recently urged the federal court system to formally regulate the use of AI in the practice of law. Recognizing the gravity of this issue, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its “Policy on Artificial Intelligence” (effective 1/1/25), which provides an ethical framework for responsible use of AI in the legal profession.
In furtherance of this effort, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) recently released the Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI, which acts as a technical counterpart to ensure that attorneys use AI in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court policy.
At this moment, when courts across the country continue to sanction attorneys and even judges for improper AI use, the message is clear: AI is here, and lawyers must take care to observe their ethical obligations when implementing it.
What Does the ARDC’s New Guidance Mean for Illinois Lawyers?
A consistent theme in the ARDC’s guidance is that AI does not change a lawyer’s core duties. Whether you represent employers, executives, employees, or small businesses, your responsibilities as counsel remain the same.
Here are the key takeaways:
- Understand the Tool You’re Using
Not all AI tools operate the same way. The ARDC distinguishes between third-party platforms, such as ChatGPT or Copilot, and internal or firm-managed systems. Lawyers must understand how these tools function before relying on them.
- Protect Client Confidentiality
Before entering any client information into an AI system, attorneys must review terms of service, data retention policies, and privacy protections. Confidentiality rules still apply, regardless of the technology involved.
- Use an Implementation Framework
The ARDC offers a practical structure to implement AI in a firm: classify your information (whether it is de-identified information, sensitive personal information, or subject to confidentiality), assess what the AI tool can and cannot do, identify potential risks, and build in safeguards.
- Leverage Resources
The guide includes a “Practice Resource Kit” with sample policies, checklists, and disclosure language, all designed to help attorney teams implement AI responsibly.
Taken together, the ARDC provides lawyers with a clear, workable roadmap for using AI without compromising professional standards.
Best Practices for Attorneys and AI
Using the Illinois Supreme Court Policy and ARDC’s Guide as a springboard, some best practices for attorneys incorporating the use of AI in practice include:
- Educate your team. Everyone who touches client materials should understand how to use AI tools, including their limitations and ethical implications, using the Illinois Supreme Court Policy and ARDC’s framework as a practical starting point.
- Verify every citation, fact, or legal proposition. AI outputs must always be checked against primary sources.
- Document your process. Keep internal records showing when and how AI tools were used in case work.
These steps help ensure that AI enhances your work rather than undermines it.
What Should Clients Know About AI in Legal Services?
If you’re a client, AI can be beneficial since it can help streamline some of the work being performed for you, likely reducing fees in your matter. If you have questions about how AI is used by your attorney, you don’t need to be a tech expert to protect your interests. Here are a few points to discuss with counsel:
- Ask How Your Attorney Uses AI. It’s reasonable for you to want to understand whether AI tools are used in your representation and how that work is reviewed.
- Expect Confidentiality. Your attorney should be able to explain how your data is protected before it is entered into any system.
- Human Oversight Matters. AI can assist with drafting or analysis, but it cannot replace legal judgment. Lawyers must guarantee they will not substitute their own analysis for AI.
- Transparency Builds Trust. Lawyers should be comfortable explaining whether and how AI is used in their practice, including how they review, revise, and confirm accuracy of any information generated by AI.
AI is poised to shape the future of legal practice, offering meaningful benefits for lawyers and clients alike. While technology offers many benefits, the judgment, accuracy, and integrity required of legal professionals—and most especially, the relationship of trust between client and attorney—will always remain human.