--- title: "Ohio: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/ohio" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-OH" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Ohio: AI rules for lawyers > Ohio: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/ohio Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies 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). - [Local Rule 49 - Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions](https://hamiltoncountycourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Local-Rule-49-AI.pdf) - [Rule 12.08 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://montcourt.oh.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Rule-12.08-Use-of-Generative-AI-2025.11.19.pdf) - [Certificate regarding judge-specific requirements](https://cp.cuyahogacounty.gov/media/3728/jjr-certificate-re-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf) - [Standing Order Governing Civil Cases (Judge Newman)](https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf) - [Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Graham)](https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf) - [Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (Judge Boyko)](https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf) - [Order on the Use of Generative AI and Shadow Counsel (Magistrate Judge Greenberg)](https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/JDG%20AI%20Ban%20and%20Shadow%20Counsel%20Order.pdf) - [Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers](https://www.bpc.ohio.gov/_files/ugd/c6a571_4e12e5f9a0104eaebe9351007c899b4f.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Ohio in the last 12 months - 13 November 2025 · Dated: [Rules of Superintendence, Sup.R. 87 (now Sup.R. 9.09): Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Interpretation and Translation](#ai-rule-jr-us-oh-sup-r-87-ai-interpretation-translation) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Rules of Superintendence, Sup.R. 87 (now Sup.R. 9.09): Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Interpretation and Translation - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Supreme Court of Ohio - Date on page: 18 November 2025 - Effective date: 13 November 2025 - Status: 13 November 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2025/CourtInterpreterRules_111825.asp Applies to Ohio courts, not to lawyers' own filings. Courts may not use AI for substantive legal interpretation or translation in legal proceedings, and may use AI for non-substantive, non-legal translation (for example signage) with clear disclosure and human review where possible. Relevant to lawyers who rely on court-provided language services. The rule's text was not read. The summary rests on the court's news report, and the current rule number was confirmed from the table of contents of the consolidated rules. Key points: - Bars AI for substantive legal interpretation or translation in proceedings. - Permits AI for non-substantive translation with disclosure and human review when possible. - Now numbered Sup.R. 9.09 in the restructured Rules of Superintendence; cite the current number. #### Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Judge Graham) - Date on page: 21 October 2025 - Effective date: 21 October 2025 - Status: 21 October 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf Applies to parties, including pro se litigants, who use generative AI to help generate any part of a pleading, motion, brief or other document. They must file a declaration captioned 'Disclosure of the Use of Generative AI' identifying the AI-assisted content by page, section or paragraph and the platform used, and certifying that they reviewed source material and complied with Rule 11(b). The signer stays responsible under Rule 11 and may be sanctioned under Rule 11(c). The order is by a single judge and the page does not say which cases it covers beyond that judge's. Key points: - Disclosure is by declaration identifying the AI-assisted content and the platform. - Certification of source review and Rule 11(b) compliance is required. - Contrast with other Ohio federal judges who ban AI use in filings outright. #### Standing Order Governing Civil Cases, Part VI: Artificial Intelligence ('AI') Provision - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton (Judge Newman) - Date on page: 27 August 2025 - Effective date: 27 August 2025 - Status: 27 August 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf In cases before this judge, no attorney or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing. Sanctions may include striking the pleading, economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal. The ban is not intended to cover legal search engines (Westlaw, Lexis), internet search engines or Microsoft Suite products, and the stated purpose is to prevent citation of false or hallucinated law. Parties and counsel must immediately tell the court if they discover AI use in any document filed in their own or an opponent's case. Key points: - Outright prohibition rather than disclosure. - Express carve-out for legal research platforms, internet search and Microsoft Suite products. - Duty to report discovered AI use, including in an opponent's filing. #### Artificial Intelligence Resource Library - Type: Government policy or guidance · Government guidance - Issuer: Supreme Court of Ohio - Date on page: Last-Modified header 2026-10-29 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Last-Modified header 2026-10-29; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library A collection of external articles, other states' policies and Ohio materials for judicial officers, court staff and practitioners, including the Board of Professional Conduct's AI ethics guide and a State of Ohio IT policy on AI. It is a convenience resource and does not impose duties on lawyers. Key points: - Lists the Board of Professional Conduct's Ohio Ethics Guide on AI (2026). - Lists Ohio AI-hallucination cases, including State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965 (11th Dist.) and In re M.A.L.B., 2026-Ohio-2289 (4th Dist.), and gives the Supreme Court's notes on the Code of Judicial Conduct, for example that a judge should not reveal confidential information through an AI tool. - Not a rule and not an endorsement of AI use. #### Certificate regarding judge-specific requirements (generative AI) - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Judge John J. Russo) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://cp.cuyahogacounty.gov/media/3728/jjr-certificate-re-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf A judge-specific certificate that attorneys appearing before Judge Russo sign. The attorney certifies that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language (including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions and legal analysis) will be checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases before filing. It is the certificate the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct guide cites as an example. Key points: - Applies to cases before this one judge only, not the whole court. - Non-compliance leads to a failure-to-comply hearing. - The signing attorney is responsible for the filing's contents under the rules of attorney discipline whether or not AI drafted any of it. #### Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Judge Boyko) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf In cases before this judge, no attorney or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court, under the court's inherent authority and Rule 11. Sanctions may include striking the pleading, economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal. Legal search engines (Westlaw, Lexis) and internet search engines are not intended to be covered. Parties and counsel must immediately tell the court if they discover AI use in any document filed in their case. Key points: - Prohibition, not disclosure. - The order's wording on the ban covers 'Artificial Intelligence' (the title refers to generative AI). - Duty to report discovered AI use. #### Local Rule 49 - Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://hamiltoncountycourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Local-Rule-49-AI.pdf Applies to attorneys and parties filing in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Anyone who uses AI to create or edit any document or evidence submitted to the court must disclose it, at the time of submission, in a certification attached to the document that describes the AI used and certifies the attorney's final review and approval. Attorneys remain responsible for accuracy and for their duties of competence, diligence and supervision under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Key points: - Disclosure is by attached certification at the time of submission, covering the type of AI used and its role. - The definition of AI is broad (machine learning, natural language processing, document generation, evidence creation or analysis, legal research). - Violations may attract sanctions including under Civil Rule 11 and Civil Rule 37. #### Order on the Use of Generative AI and Shadow Counsel (template order) - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Magistrate Judge Greenberg) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/JDG%20AI%20Ban%20and%20Shadow%20Counsel%20Order.pdf A template order a magistrate judge may enter in a case. It bars attorneys and pro se parties from using AI in preparing any filing, with sanctions including striking, economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal. Legal search engines and internet search engines are not intended to be covered. It also imposes a duty to tell the court of discovered AI use and prohibits undisclosed ghostwriting ('shadow counsel') to preserve Rule 11 accountability. Key points: - Applies only in cases where this judge enters the order. - Combines an AI ban with a ban on undisclosed attorney assistance. - Express carve-out for Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google and Bing. #### Rule 12.08 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Montgomery County (Ohio) court, montcourt.oh.gov (the document refers only to 'the Court') - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://montcourt.oh.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Rule-12.08-Use-of-Generative-AI-2025.11.19.pdf Applies to attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI in preparing materials submitted to the court, including editing. Use must be disclosed at the time of submission in a certification attached to the materials, with a general description of the tool and its role, verifying review for accuracy, validity and relevancy. The court may ask for more information, strike or disregard a filing, and impose sanctions. Key points: - Certification must be attached to the submission and must verify the filer has reviewed the materials for accuracy, validity and relevancy and that they meet legal and ethical standards. - The court may strike or disregard a filing if GenAI use caused a procedural irregularity, a material misrepresentation or a rule violation. - Sanctions may include those under Civ.R. 11 and, for attorneys, a grievance to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or a local certified grievance committee. ### State bar and regulators #### Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers - Type: Regulator guidance - Issuer: Ohio Board of Professional Conduct (staff guidance, published at the request of the Supreme Court of Ohio) - Date on page: Published April 2026 (PDF); Court News Ohio report dated 2026-06-30 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Published April 2026 (PDF); Court News Ohio report dated 2026-06-30; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.bpc.ohio.gov/_files/ugd/c6a571_4e12e5f9a0104eaebe9351007c899b4f.pdf Nonbinding guidance from Board of Professional Conduct staff on how the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers using generative AI, and how the Code of Judicial Conduct applies to judges. It says the Rules do not prohibit AI use but that competence (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and comment [8]), confidentiality (1.6), client communication (1.4), independent judgment (2.1), fees (1.5), candor to the tribunal (3.1, 3.3) and supervision (5.1, 5.3) all apply. The guide expressly says it does not reflect the views of the Board, its Commissioners or the Supreme Court of Ohio. Key points: - Human verification of facts, citations, quotations and propositions of law is required before filing; a lawyer should never rely solely on AI output without checking original sources. - Hallucinated authority in a filing implicates Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 3.1; a lawyer who later finds a hallucination must immediately tell the court and opposing counsel. The guide cites State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965 (an Eleventh District case, per the Supreme Court of Ohio AI Resource Library) ($2,000 sanction and referral to disciplinary counsel). - Confidentiality: review vendor terms, anonymise client details, prefer enterprise tools that do not train on inputs, and consider the client's informed consent in some matters. - Client disclosure is not required in itself for AI-assisted research, but is more likely required where AI materially affects how the matter is conducted, produces the final work product, receives client information or is billed separately; a lawyer must answer a client's questions about AI use (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4)). - Lawyers must bill only for time actually spent, may not claim time AI saved, and must comply with any court's local rules or standing orders on AI use and disclosure (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4). ## Sources 12 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - Supreme Court of Ohio: [Rules of Superintendence, Sup.R. 87 (now Sup.R. 9.09): Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Interpretation and Translation](https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2025/CourtInterpreterRules_111825.asp) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Judge Graham): [Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton (Judge Newman): [Standing Order Governing Civil Cases, Part VI: Artificial Intelligence ('AI') Provision](https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Ohio: [Artificial Intelligence Resource Library](https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Judge John J. Russo): [Certificate regarding judge-specific requirements (generative AI)](https://cp.cuyahogacounty.gov/media/3728/jjr-certificate-re-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Judge Boyko): [Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI](https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio): [Local Rule 49 - Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions](https://hamiltoncountycourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Local-Rule-49-AI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - US District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Magistrate Judge Greenberg): [Order on the Use of Generative AI and Shadow Counsel (template order)](https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/JDG%20AI%20Ban%20and%20Shadow%20Counsel%20Order.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Montgomery County (Ohio) court, montcourt.oh.gov (the document refers only to 'the Court'): [Rule 12.08 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://montcourt.oh.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Rule-12.08-Use-of-Generative-AI-2025.11.19.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.bpc.ohio.gov/_files/ugd/c6a571_4e12e5f9a0104eaebe9351007c899b4f.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Court News Ohio](https://courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Supreme Court of Ohio](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/superintendence/Superintendence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 10 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*