16 October 2026; start date not confirmedBinding rulePortage County Circuit Court (Ninth Judicial District), WisconsinOctober 16, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin: AI rules for lawyers
Wisconsin, 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
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
There is no statewide Wisconsin Supreme Court rule or State Bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI. A rule petition (26-02) was dismissed on 15 October 2026 after the petitioner withdrew it.
AI rules are local and vary, so check the specific county and judicial district before filing. Kenosha County (CR 02-12) and Waukesha County Family Division (26-SO-03 (67)) require written AI disclosure with a certification.
Portage County Rule 2.15 and the Fifth Judicial District Interim Policy (23 September 2026) take the opposite approach: no routine disclosure, but the lawyer stays fully responsible, certifies citations under Wis. Stat. 802.05(2), and may be ordered to disclose if the filing is challenged.
Verify every citation from AI output regardless of county. The Bar's own materials say hallucinated-citation cases are arguably a failure of the duty of candour to verify what is filed.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtVaries by court
Court disclosure: depends. There is no statewide rule; Kenosha County and Waukesha County Family Division require it, while Portage County and the Fifth Judicial District say it is not required unless the court asks. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. No statewide rule requires it; Bar CLE materials list, as common themes of bar opinions, informed client consent before entering confidential information into AI tools and telling clients about GenAI use when necessary or asked.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Wisconsin in the last 12 months
- DatedPortage County Circuit Court Rules, Rule 2.15 Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence
- DatedOrder dismissing Rule Petition 26-02 (proposed SCR Ch. 76, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings)
- DatedFifth Judicial District - Generative Artificial Intelligence Interim Policy
- DatedStanding Order 26-SO-03 (67): Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs, Proposed Orders and Other Filings in Family Division
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
15 October 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceWisconsin Supreme CourtOctober 15, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
23 September 2026; start date not confirmedPractice noteChief Judge, Fifth Judicial District, Wisconsin Circuit Court23 September 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
22 January 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceWaukesha County Circuit Court, Third Judicial District (Presiding Judge Ralph M. Ramirez), WisconsinDated at Waukesha, Wisconsin the 22nd Day of January, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Volume 4, Issue 10 (October 2025); start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceDirector of State Courts Office, Wisconsin Court SystemVolume 4, Issue 10 (October 2025)Last checked 31 October 2026
as of January 12, 2026 (revised); start date not confirmedBinding ruleKenosha County Circuit Court, Wisconsinas of January 12, 2026 (revised)Last checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
8 September 2017; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceState Bar of Wisconsin Professional Ethics CommitteeAmended September 8, 2017Last checked 31 October 2026
AMC 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceState Bar of Wisconsin (Ethics Counsel and Practice Management Advisor)AMC 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
11 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.Show all sources
- Portage County Circuit Court (Ninth Judicial District), Wisconsin: Portage County Circuit Court Rules, Rule 2.15 Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence · last checked
- Wisconsin Supreme Court: Order dismissing Rule Petition 26-02 (proposed SCR Ch. 76, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings) · last checked
- Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial District, Wisconsin Circuit Court: Fifth Judicial District - Generative Artificial Intelligence Interim Policy · last checked
- Waukesha County Circuit Court, Third Judicial District (Presiding Judge Ralph M. Ramirez), Wisconsin: Standing Order 26-SO-03 (67): Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs, Proposed Orders and Other Filings in Family Division · last checked
- Director of State Courts Office, Wisconsin Court System: Committee explores role of artificial intelligence in Wisconsin courts (Third Branch eNews, October 2025) · last checked
- Kenosha County Circuit Court, Wisconsin: Kenosha County Circuit Court Rules, CR 02-12 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Court Filings · last checked
- State Bar of Wisconsin Professional Ethics Committee: Formal Ethics Opinion EF-15-01: Ethical Obligations of Attorneys Using Cloud Computing (amended 2017) · last checked
- State Bar of Wisconsin (Ethics Counsel and Practice Management Advisor): The State of AI in Legal Practice: An Update on Ethics & Implementation of AI into Legal Technology (Annual Meeting & Conference 2025, Session 4 materials) · last checked
- Wisconsin Court System · last checked
- Waukesha County · last checked
- Wisconsin Legislature · 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.