13 November 2025; start date not confirmedBinding ruleSupreme Court of OhioLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Ohio: AI rules for lawyers
Ohio, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Ohio has no statewide court rule on AI in filings that I found. Disclosure or bans come from individual courts and judges, so check the local rules and the assigned judge's standing orders before every filing.
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct staff guidance (nonbinding) says the Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit AI, but lawyers must keep up with AI under Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 comment [8], protect client confidentiality, and verify every fact, citation and quotation before filing.
A hallucinated citation engages Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 3.3(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d); if you discover one after filing you should immediately tell the court and opposing counsel.
Federal judges differ sharply: Judges Newman (S.D. Ohio) and Boyko and Magistrate Judge Greenberg (N.D. Ohio) ban AI use in filings (with carve-outs for legal and internet search engines), while Judge Graham (S.D. Ohio) requires a disclosure declaration.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtVaries by court
Court disclosure: depends. No statewide rule found; Hamilton County Common Pleas (Local Rule 49), the Montgomery County court (Rule 12.08), S.D. Ohio Judge Graham and Cuyahoga Judge Russo require disclosure or certification, and several federal judges ban AI use in filings instead. Client disclosure/consent: depends.
The Board guide says there is no automatic duty but disclosure is more likely required in some circumstances, a lawyer must answer client questions about AI use, and informed consent should be considered before inputting client information in some matters (nonbinding).
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Ohio in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
21 October 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUS District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Judge Graham)Last checked 31 October 2026
27 August 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUS District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton (Judge Newman)Last checked 31 October 2026
Last-Modified header 2026-10-29; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceSupreme Court of OhioLast-Modified header 2026-10-29Last checked 31 October 2026
Practice noteCuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Judge John J. Russo)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Professional guidanceUS District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Judge Boyko)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Binding ruleHamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Professional guidanceUS District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Magistrate Judge Greenberg)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Binding ruleMontgomery County (Ohio) court, montcourt.oh.gov (the document refers only to 'the Court')Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
Published April 2026 (PDF); Court News Ohio report dated 2026-06-30; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceOhio Board of Professional Conduct (staff guidance, published at the request of the Supreme Court of Ohio)Published April 2026 (PDF); Court News Ohio report dated 2026-06-30Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
12 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.Show all sources
- Supreme Court of Ohio: Rules of Superintendence, Sup.R. 87 (now Sup.R. 9.09): Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Interpretation and Translation · last checked
- US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Judge Graham): Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence · last checked
- US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton (Judge Newman): Standing Order Governing Civil Cases, Part VI: Artificial Intelligence ('AI') Provision · last checked
- Supreme Court of Ohio: Artificial Intelligence Resource Library · last checked
- Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Judge John J. Russo): Certificate regarding judge-specific requirements (generative AI) · last checked
- US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Judge Boyko): Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI · last checked
- Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio): Local Rule 49 - Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions · last checked
- US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Magistrate Judge Greenberg): Order on the Use of Generative AI and Shadow Counsel (template order) · last checked
- Montgomery County (Ohio) court, montcourt.oh.gov (the document refers only to 'the Court'): Rule 12.08 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence · last checked
- Ohio Board of Professional Conduct (staff guidance, published at the request of the Supreme Court of Ohio): Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers · last checked
- Court News Ohio · last checked
- Supreme Court of Ohio · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.