--- title: "Indiana: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/indiana" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-IN" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Indiana: AI rules for lawyers > Indiana: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/indiana Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers No AI-specific rule of court or professional conduct for lawyers was found in Indiana; the existing rules apply. Rule 1.1 Comment [6] says lawyers should keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology relevant to their practice. Verify every citation. The Court of Appeals has cautioned attorneys and pro se litigants against using AI for legal research without independently verifying the citations. In federal court in Indiana, a lawyer was personally sanctioned $6,000 under Rule 11 for unverified AI-generated citations in three briefs (the magistrate judge had recommended $15,000, applying Indiana Rules 1.1, 3.1 and 3.3), and the matter was referred to the Indiana attorney disciplinary commission. The Supreme Court's internal AI policy and the trial-court model policies are for judges and court staff, not lawyers. Individual trial courts may adopt their own policies from the toolkit, so check the court and judge. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear Court disclosure: no rule found. No statewide rule or order requiring AI disclosure or certification was found; local and judge-specific orders were not exhaustively checked. - [Guardrails for the Future](https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/) - [From Guardrails to Toolkit](https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Indiana in the last 12 months No new or changed AI rules recorded for Indiana in the last 12 months. ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-196 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2025): warning on AI-generated citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Indiana Court of Appeals - Date on page: August 18, 2025 - Effective date: 18 August 2025 - Status: 18 August 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://caseclips.courts.in.gov/2025/08/18/williams-v-kirch-no-25a-sc-196-__-n-e-3d-__-ind-ct-app-aug-18-2025 The Court of Appeals (Vaidik, J.) affirmed a small-claims judgment and took the opportunity to remind pro se litigants and attorneys of the dangers of using AI for legal research. It said generative AI can produce citations to non-existent authorities and cautioned litigants to verify citations before including them in briefs. The page read is the court's Case Clips summary with an excerpt of the opinion; the full opinion was not read. Key points: - Addressed to both pro se litigants and attorneys. - The pro se appellant's brief cited several cases that do not exist; the court said this may be the result of generative AI. - No sanction was requested, so the court only admonished the appellant; it noted that courts nationwide have sanctioned attorneys and pro se litigants for fictitious citations. - A caution, not a disclosure rule. #### Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Order on Report and Recommendation ($6,000 sanction for AI-fabricated citations) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: US District Court, Southern District of Indiana - Date on page: Filed 05/28/25; Date: 5/28/2025 - Effective date: 28 May 2025 - Status: 28 May 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326-5.pdf District Judge Hanlon adopted the magistrate judge's report in part and personally sanctioned counsel $6,000 under Rule 11 for filing briefs with non-existent AI-generated citations on three occasions. The court rejected the argument that sanctions were moot because of reputational harm, but took into account counsel's steps to educate himself on responsible AI use and the collateral consequences, including the order of reference to the Indiana attorney disciplinary commission. Key points: - Final sanction $6,000, reduced from the $15,000 recommended. - Counsel admitted relying on generative AI tools and not verifying the citations. - The matter was referred to the Indiana attorney disciplinary commission (dkt. 103). #### Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Report and Recommendation on AI-fabricated citations - Type: Judgment - Issuer: US District Court, Southern District of Indiana - Date on page: Filed 02/21/25 - Effective date: 21 February 2025 - Status: 21 February 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326-3.pdf Magistrate Judge Dinsmore found that counsel filed three briefs citing non-existent cases generated with AI and did not verify them. Applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1 and 3.3, the report recommended a $15,000 personal sanction ($5,000 per brief) and referred the matter to the Chief Judge under Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a). The district judge later adopted it in part and reduced the sanction to $6,000 (see the separate record for the May 28, 2025 order). Key points: - Counsel said he did not know AI could produce fictitious cases; the court held good faith is no defence and failure to verify breached Rule 11's reasonable inquiry into the law. - The court said AI use is not forbidden but must be consistent with counsel's ethical and professional obligations. - A federal court applying Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (via S.D. Ind. Local R. 83-5(f)). #### Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 (Competence), Comment [6] on technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court - Date on page: Effective January 1, 2018 - Effective date: 1 January 2018 - Status: In force from 1 January 2018 - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/prof-conduct/rule1-1/current.htm Applies to all Indiana lawyers. Comment [6] says that to maintain competence a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to the lawyer's practice, and comply with CLE requirements. It does not mention AI by name, but it is the textual basis for a duty to understand generative AI tools used in practice. Key points: - Comment [6] (headed 'Maintaining Competence') refers to the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to the lawyer's practice. - No AI-specific wording on the page read. #### Indiana Supreme Court internal AI use policy (reported in Indiana Court Times) - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court / Office of Judicial Administration - Date on page: August 6, 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: August 6, 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/ An Indiana Court Times article (Office of Judicial Administration) reports that the Supreme Court approved an internal AI use policy for Supreme Court and OJA employees. It binds court employees, not practising lawyers. The AI Governance Committee concluded that the user's behaviour was what needed regulating and that this is already covered by the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct, so the policy is built on those existing rules. Key points: - Distinguishes AI software with open and closed models for confidentiality; sensitive data requires consulting the Court's IT and data governance directors. - Applies to Supreme Court and OJA employees, not practising lawyers. - The policy text itself was not read; this is the court's own description. #### Model AI use policy toolkit for Indiana trial courts (reported in Indiana Court Times) - Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline - Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee - Date on page: February 17, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: February 17, 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/ The article reports that the Supreme Court approved model AI use policy documents for trial courts (an AI Starter Pack benchcard, a policy development checklist, model AI policy terms and a judges' AI buyer's guide), circulated to trial courts via the Weekly Bulletin. Trial judges may adopt, reject or modify the elements for their own courts. They are aimed at judges and court staff, not lawyers, so any local trial-court policy should be checked individually. The documents themselves were not read. Key points: - Optional, modular toolkit because Indiana's trial courts are county-based and non-unified. - Cautions judges against a policy that completely bans AI use. - The documents are posted on INcite under the Benchbook application; they were not read. ## Sources - Indiana Court of Appeals: [Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-196 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2025): warning on AI-generated citations](https://caseclips.courts.in.gov/2025/08/18/williams-v-kirch-no-25a-sc-196-__-n-e-3d-__-ind-ct-app-aug-18-2025) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Southern District of Indiana: [Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Order on Report and Recommendation ($6,000 sanction for AI-fabricated citations)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326-5.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Southern District of Indiana: [Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Report and Recommendation on AI-fabricated citations](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-2_24-cv-00326-3.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Indiana Supreme Court: [Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 (Competence), Comment 6 on technology](https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/prof-conduct/rule1-1/current.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Indiana Supreme Court / Office of Judicial Administration: [Indiana Supreme Court internal AI use policy (reported in Indiana Court Times)](https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee: [Model AI use policy toolkit for Indiana trial courts (reported in Indiana Court Times)](https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 6 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*