Indiana
pendingSummary
Indiana has no formal state bar AI ethics opinion. The Indiana Supreme Court formed an AI Governance Committee in fall 2024 and released a trial-court AI policy toolkit in February 2026, with attorney-facing guidance still pending. The Southern District of Indiana has already sanctioned an attorney for AI-hallucinated citations under Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3.
Applicable ABA Model Rules
- Rule 1.1
- Rule 1.4
- Rule 1.5
- Rule 1.6
- Rule 2.1
- Rule 3.1
- Rule 3.3
- Rule 5.1
- Rule 5.3
Carrier Implications
No Indiana-specific carrier has issued AI bulletins. National pattern of AI exclusion endorsements applies. Firms should ask their broker before renewal whether AI-related claims are covered and whether a written AI policy is required.
Indiana has no formal Indiana State Bar Association ethics opinion on attorney use of generative AI. The Indiana Supreme Court’s AI Governance Committee, formed in fall 2024, has approved an internal AI policy and released a February 2026 trial-court toolkit, and has stated it plans to develop attorney and litigant AI guidance.
In the Southern District of Indiana, Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore and District Judge James Patrick Hanlon sanctioned an attorney for AI-hallucinated citations across three pleadings in 2025 and referred the matter for potential bar discipline, citing Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) is the operative interpretive framework for Indiana attorneys.
Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Indiana firm: There is no Indiana-specific AI ethics opinion to follow, but the Southern District of Indiana has demonstrated it will sanction attorneys for AI hallucinations and refer them to bar regulators. Adopt a written firm AI use policy now, require attorney verification of all AI-generated citations, and monitor the Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee for forthcoming attorney guidance.
Last verified: April 23, 2026