LegalTek.ai – AI-Powered Legal Solutions

    “Nothing else in the world … is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

    — Victor Hugo
    Ohio Supreme Court rendered in cyberpunk aesthetic with neon legal data streams
    Back to Home
    Curated Resource Hub

    Ohio Supreme Court
    AI Resource Library

    An annotated mirror of the Supreme Court of Ohio's Artificial Intelligence Resource Library — with full reproductions of public-record materials, summaries of third-party works, and direct crosswalks to the COUNSEL Framework.

    Curated & annotated by Matthew A. Mishak, Esq.·Source: supremecourt.ohio.gov

    What this hub is — and what it isn't

    The Supreme Court of Ohio published an AI Resource Library to give Ohio's bench and bar a single index of the materials shaping artificial intelligence in legal practice. LegalTek.ai mirrors that index, annotates each entry, and connects every authority back to the seven-pillar COUNSEL Framework so Ohio attorneys can move from reading about AI governance to practicing under it.

    Native pages reproduce public-record materials (Ohio Supreme Court reports, federal court orders, government guidance) in full with attribution. External entries are third-party copyrighted works (ABA opinions, academic papers, vendor reports) that we summarize and deep-link — not republish.

    01

    Ohio Supreme Court Guidance

    Primary work product of the Supreme Court of Ohio addressing artificial intelligence in the practice of law and judicial administration. Reproduced as public record with attribution to the Court.

    Native on LegalTek
    2025

    Ohio Supreme Court AI Task Force — Final Report

    Supreme Court of Ohio · AI Task Force

    Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy's task force findings on the use of generative AI by Ohio courts, judges, court staff, and attorneys. Establishes baseline expectations for competence, supervision, confidentiality, and disclosure across the state's judicial system.

    Why it matters

    Sets the de facto governance floor for AI use in Ohio courtrooms. Every Ohio attorney should read it before deploying generative AI on any matter.

    COUNSEL crosswalk: Maps to COUNSEL pillars C (Competence), O (Oversight), and L (Lifecycle).
    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2025

    Ohio Rules of Judicial Conduct — AI Commentary

    Supreme Court of Ohio

    The Court's reading of how the existing Rules of Judicial Conduct apply to judges' use of AI tools — for legal research, drafting, scheduling, and adjudication. Identifies the rules implicated and the conduct expected.

    Why it matters

    Judges are accountable for AI-assisted work product. This is the closest thing Ohio has to a binding judicial AI standard.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2025

    AI Bench Card (Ohio)

    Supreme Court of Ohio

    Single-page bench reference summarizing AI-related issues a judge is likely to encounter — disclosure prompts, hallucinated authority, deepfake evidence challenges, and chambers-side AI use. Designed for the bench, useful for counsel.

    Why it matters

    If your judge has it on the bench, you should know what's on it.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    May 13, 2025

    Press Release — Launch of Ohio AI Resource Library

    Supreme Court of Ohio · Office of Public Information

    Official announcement of the Ohio Supreme Court's AI Resource Library, signaling that the Court treats AI governance in legal practice as a sustained, multi-year priority rather than a single rulemaking event.

    Why it matters

    Signals where Ohio's judicial branch is pointing the profession.

    Read on LegalTek
    02

    Other State Court AI Policies

    How the rest of the country is approaching judicial AI. Curated for cross-jurisdictional pattern recognition. We summarize and link to the source; we do not republish.

    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    California Judicial Council — Generative AI Use Policy

    Judicial Council of California

    Statewide framework directing California courts to either adopt their own generative AI policy or follow the model promulgated by the Judicial Council. Addresses confidentiality, accuracy verification, bias, and public access.

    Why it matters

    First statewide judicial AI mandate in the U.S. — a template other states (including Ohio) are studying.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2025

    Illinois Supreme Court — AI Policy for the Judicial Branch

    Supreme Court of Illinois

    Illinois permits the use of AI by judges, staff, and attorneys provided the user remains responsible for the accuracy of all work product and complies with confidentiality obligations. Notably does not require disclosure of AI use in filings.

    Why it matters

    The 'responsibility, not disclosure' model. Contrast with judges who require affirmative disclosure.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    New York State Courts — Interim AI Guidance

    NYS Unified Court System

    Interim guidance permitting court staff to use approved AI tools for limited administrative tasks while a permanent rule is developed. Bars use for substantive decisional content.

    Why it matters

    Shows the cautious 'pilot first' approach common to large court systems.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — Proposed Rule on AI

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

    Proposed rule (later withdrawn for revision) that would have required attorneys to certify whether generative AI was used to draft any portion of a filing and to confirm that AI-generated content was reviewed for accuracy.

    Why it matters

    The most-litigated federal proposal on AI disclosure. Worth tracking even after withdrawal.

    Read on LegalTek
    03

    Federal Court Standing Orders on AI

    Individual federal judges have moved faster than rulemaking committees. These standing orders are public; we link to representative examples.

    Native on LegalTek
    2023

    Standing Order — Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.)

    U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

    The first widely-known federal AI standing order. Requires attorneys appearing before Judge Starr to certify either that no portion of a filing was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted portion was checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases.

    Why it matters

    The model that spread to dozens of other federal judges. If you practice federally, assume some version of this rule applies.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2023

    Standing Order — Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa.)

    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

    Requires disclosure if generative AI was used in preparing any filing and identification of the specific AI tool used, along with a certification of human verification.

    Why it matters

    Goes further than Starr by requiring identification of the tool, not just disclosure of use.

    Read on LegalTek
    04

    AI Ethics Opinions

    ABA and state bar formal opinions on attorney use of AI. Cited extensively in the COUNSEL Framework.

    Native on LegalTek
    July 2024

    ABA Formal Opinion 512 — Generative AI Tools

    ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility

    The first ABA formal opinion to address generative AI directly. Maps existing Model Rules of Professional Conduct — competence (1.1), confidentiality (1.6), communication (1.4), candor to the tribunal (3.3), supervisory duties (5.1, 5.3), and fees (1.5) — onto attorney use of generative AI tools.

    Why it matters

    The single most important ethics opinion in the U.S. on AI for lawyers. Every COUNSEL pillar traces a duty back to Opinion 512.

    COUNSEL crosswalk: Foundation for the entire COUNSEL Framework — every pillar (C/O/U/N/S/E/L) traces back to a duty articulated here.
    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    January 2024

    Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1

    The Florida Bar

    Permits attorneys to use generative AI subject to confidentiality, oversight, candor, and fee-reasonableness obligations. Addresses fee-billing implications when AI compresses task time, and requires informed client consent before sharing confidential information with a third-party AI provider.

    Why it matters

    First state bar to address AI billing economics directly. Read alongside Opinion 512.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    New York County Lawyers Association — Formal Opinion on AI

    NYCLA Committee on Professional Ethics

    Addresses generative AI under New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Reinforces that the lawyer — not the tool — remains responsible for accuracy and that confidential client data may not be disclosed to non-confidential AI services without informed consent.

    Why it matters

    Closest analog to Opinion 512 at the state level in New York.

    Read on LegalTek
    05

    Reports, Articles & Whitepapers

    Selected scholarship and industry research. Summarized and linked; full text remains with the publisher.

    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    Hallucinating Law: Legal Mistakes with LLMs

    Stanford RegLab & HAI

    Empirical study finding that general-purpose large language models hallucinate legal authority in a substantial percentage of legal queries, and that hallucination rates remain non-trivial even for retrieval-augmented legal AI products.

    Why it matters

    The empirical foundation for why verification — not trust — is the COUNSEL Framework's default posture.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2024

    Future of Professionals Report

    Thomson Reuters Institute

    Annual survey of legal, tax, and risk professionals on AI adoption, productivity expectations, and pricing model implications. Tracks the gap between firm-level AI strategy and individual-attorney AI use.

    Why it matters

    Quantifies the adoption curve. Useful when persuading partners or clients.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    2024-2025

    AI Pulse Survey — Legal Industry

    Law360 / LexisNexis

    Periodic survey tracking AI tool adoption across U.S. law firms by firm size, practice area, and seniority.

    Why it matters

    Useful benchmark when assessing your firm against peers.

    Read on LegalTek
    06

    Courses & CLE

    Continuing legal education resources. We list only programs that are publicly registered or sponsored by recognized providers.

    Native on LegalTek
    Available now

    COUNSEL Framework — CLE

    LegalTek.ai · Matthew A. Mishak, Esq.

    Hour-by-hour walkthrough of the seven-principle COUNSEL Framework aligned to ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Ohio's emerging guidance. Designed for Ohio CLE credit.

    Why it matters

    Native to this site. Built specifically for Ohio attorneys.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    Ongoing

    Ohio Judicial College — AI Programs

    Supreme Court of Ohio · Judicial College

    AI-related programming for Ohio judges and magistrates delivered through the Ohio Judicial College. Curriculum addresses judicial use of AI, AI-generated evidence, and emerging case law.

    Why it matters

    If the bench is being trained on this, counsel should be too.

    Read on LegalTek
    07

    LegalTek.ai Cross-References

    Where LegalTek.ai's own research and tools intersect the Ohio library. Native, free, and continuously updated.

    Native on LegalTek
    2025

    COUNSEL Framework

    LegalTek.ai

    Seven-principle ethics framework for AI in legal practice — Competence, Oversight, Use Cases, Non-disclosure, Supervision, Ethics, Lifecycle. Built specifically to operationalize ABA Formal Opinion 512.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    Live

    AI Sanctions Tracker — Live Database

    LegalTek.ai

    Real-time database of every reported judicial sanction involving generative AI in the United States. Searchable by jurisdiction, sanction type, and underlying conduct.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    Live

    AI Evidence Tracker

    LegalTek.ai

    Tracker of evidentiary rulings on AI-generated and AI-authenticated material — deepfakes, synthetic depositions, and AI-assisted forensic evidence.

    Read on LegalTek
    Native on LegalTek
    Live

    AI Privilege Tracker

    LegalTek.ai

    Tracker of rulings on attorney-client privilege and work product implications of AI use — including notetaker, transcription, and shared-cloud scenarios.

    Read on LegalTek

    Suggest a resource

    We update this hub as the Supreme Court of Ohio, the ABA, and federal courts issue new guidance. If something material is missing, send it our way.

    Submit a resource

    Attribution: The underlying library is curated by the Supreme Court of Ohio. LegalTek.ai mirrors public-record materials with attribution and provides original commentary on each entry. Third-party copyrighted works are summarized and deep-linked under fair use, not republished.

    Not legal advice. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for advice on any specific matter. LegalTek.ai is a technology company, not a law firm.