Madison County Circuit Court (Illinois): attorney certification of discovery responses involving AI assistance under the standing orders of Judges Patrick G. King and Sarah D. Smith
Fill-in Appendix 1 certifications for civil cases before Judge Patrick G. King or Judge Sarah D. Smith (Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County): filed by an attorney whose discovery responses were prepared with AI tools, with the service-time disclosure to opposing counsel.
MaintainedWe keep this page up to date.Law stated as at
Kind
Court document A document filed or served in a court or tribunal.
Version
1
Where it applies
United States, Illinois
AI use
Green The tool writes the first draft inside a template you have already tested. You check it. Without that test, first drafting starts at Yellow.
Source
Written for this library
Status
Maintained. Checked on 8 November 2026 against the 3 authorities it cites, for United States and Illinois.
When to use it
Use in civil cases before Judge King or Judge Smith when AI or automated summarization tools were used to help answer interrogatories, respond to requests for production or summarize client records. Disclose the category of tool to opposing counsel at service and file the signed certification.
How to use this precedent
Check that it fits the matter: read “When to use it” and the places it applies to.
Log in to read the full text. It is free.
Adapt it to the matter, filling in each placeholder shown in [square brackets].
Use AI only as far as the Green level allows. “How AI may be used” says what AI may and must not do.
Before it goes out, a lawyer checks it against current law and each point under “The lawyer checks”.
How AI may be used
A tool may lay out the statement the rule or order provides and fill in facts the signer gives it. The signer decides what to say about the AI use and makes the checks the statement describes.
AI may
Insert the tool name, version and uses the signer has recorded
Insert only a version of the statement that the rule or order provides and that matches the signer's account of AI use
Check that the statement sits where the rule or order says it must
AI must not
Must not state that citations, quotations or facts were checked; only the signer can say that after doing it
Must not describe the AI use more narrowly than the file record shows
Must not put prompts, privileged material or confidential client information in the statement
The lawyer checks
The current rule or order has been opened on the court's own site and matches the words used
Every citation and quotation was checked by a person against an official or recognised source
The statement is placed and signed as the rule requires, by the person the rule names
Paragraph 4 of the certification is true: no confidential or privileged material went into an AI system that stores or transmits it externally, unless a protective order or the parties' agreement allows it