Illinois Judge's Standing Order on AI Use Marks a Shift in Judicial Transparency - The National Law Review

As courts and attorneys navigate the integration of artificial intelligence into legal practice, Illinois Circuit Judge Sarah Smith has taken an unusual step: formally disclosing how she uses the technology in her courtroom.

Smith, a judge in the 3rd Judicial Circuit in Madison County, issued a standing order addendum in August outlining how the court uses AI, making it one of the first known judicial orders of its kind in Illinois. With a growing number of judicial orders containing AI-generated citations, she viewed the order as a proactive way to increase transparency and eliminate “some of the suspicion” surrounding AI in the judiciary.

Smith said the disclosure was intended to increase public confidence by explaining how she uses AI and the limits she places on it.

“As long as the bar and the public see the transparency, and know the ways that I’m using it and the left and right limits, and how I’m using it, I think that transparency increases the confidence they have in the judiciary,” Smith said.

Under Smith’s Statement of Judicial Practice Regarding the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI is treated as a “productivity tool” that can assist the court with administrative and drafting functions, such as editing written work and summarizing materials. The statement clarifies that judicial decisions remain the product of “independent human judgment” and are “never delegated to AI.”

The addendum followed Smith’s initial standing order requiring attorneys to disclose to opposing counsel if they used AI for answering interrogatories, summarizing client records, or generating evidence. Both orders build on the January 2025 Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, which does not require AI disclosure in a pleading.

“If I’m asking attorneys to be this cognizant in my specific standing order on their use of it, how unfair is it for me to kind of have those expectations of them when they should have those very same expectations of me?” Smith said.

She hoped the standing order would accomplish three things: increase transparency, educate members of the bar about responsible AI use, and reduce the stigma surrounding the technology.

Smith emphasized the importance of educating members of the bar about the capabilities and risks of generative AI. Rather than ignoring these developments, Smith believes judges should treat AI as an “advancement in technology,” another tool to be used within clear boundaries.

Smith primarily uses Westlaw CoCounsel, which was recently made available to her jurisdiction. The tool has assisted her with researching the law, organizing complex cases, and identifying weaknesses in holdings by testing those rulings against case law.

But while AI has helped with those tasks, its role stops short of making judicial decisions, from establishing the facts to deciding how the law applies to those facts.

“You still need a human involved,” she said.

She also does not enter confidential information into the AI tools she uses, an issue she said could warrant additional consideration in future amendments to the policy.

The technology has made Smith more efficient by streamlining certain tasks, leaving her with more time to “actually do the judging.”

“If we take away the scariness of it all, and we just treat this as just another form of technology that we’ve been given, and as long as we’re maintaining the things that only a judge can do, I think that it’s a great resource to help us if it’s used responsibly,” Smith said.