Methodology

Our standards

• Primary sources only. Every entry cites the bar association, court, or agency that issued the underlying document. Aggregators, vendor blogs, and legal news are leads to primary sources, not citations themselves.
• If we can't confirm it, we say so. Claims we can't trace to a primary source are either omitted or flagged on the page as unverified. Readers see what is and isn't confirmed before they rely on it.
• Every link is checked before publication. A broken citation blocks the update from going live.
• State-specific accuracy. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. We do not generalize across jurisdictions; where a state's posture is unclear, we say so.
• Dated verification. Every entry carries the date it was last verified, visible on the page itself.

Most recently verified entry across the corpus: May 15, 2026.

State bar AI ethics opinions

State pages are sourced directly from each state's bar association, supreme court, or task-force materials. Where a state has issued a formal opinion, the opinion itself is the citation. Where guidance is informal (committee notes, bar journal commentary, draft amendments out for comment), we disclose that and the status badge reflects it. States with no published guidance are labeled "Default rules apply," and the page explains what governs by default: the state's Rules of Professional Conduct plus any federal court orders binding attorneys filing in that district.

Aggregator-only claims are not propagated. Pennsylvania's "August 2024 statewide AI disclosure mandate," widely repeated across legal-tech aggregators, is not real, and the PA page flags it as fabricated. New York's Part 161 is widely misrepresented as imposing a statewide attorney certification; in fact, certification is per-court via an optional model rule, and the NY page states the distinction precisely.

Court standing orders

Court orders are sourced from the issuing court's own publications: district-level rules pages, bankruptcy general-order indexes, state supreme court rule pages, and federal agency bulletins. Order date and judge name come from the order itself. Where an order has been amended or rescinded, the entry reflects the change.

Ropes & Gray's AI Court Order Tracker serves as a discovery and cross-validation source for chambers standing orders and court-issued AI guidance. Where R&G's tracker surfaced an order we had not seen, we verify it against the issuing court's own publication before shipping; where R&G's date or attribution differs from the primary source, we cite the primary source and note the discrepancy in the entry's reviewer field. Editorial framing, practitioner implications, and legal analysis are ours.

AI sanctions cases

The case corpus draws on the hallucination database maintained by Damien Charlotin, the canonical academic record of AI-generated citation incidents in legal filings. We add a case file with our own write-up and link to the underlying primary source where one is available. Where only a Westlaw printout or other secondary document exists, the page discloses that and labels the link accordingly. Case summaries and editorial framing are ours; leads are credited to Charlotin.

Carrier and insurance research

The carrier renewal documentation page is researched against a separate primary-source set from the bar-opinion and court-order trackers, and the standards are the same: carriers, brokers, and rating agencies are quoted directly from their own publications, not from trade-press summaries.

• Carrier-published guidance. Bar-affiliated mutuals (ALPS, OBLIC, TLIE, ISBA Mutual, Lawyers Mutual NC, FLMIC, MLM, LMICK, WILMIC, ALAS, Lawyers Mutual CA) and commercial-stock carriers (AmTrust, AttPro / Berkshire, CNA via PA Bar, Markel, Hartford) are cited from their own published articles, application forms, and risk-control bulletins.
• SEC EDGAR. Public-carrier 10-Ks (CNA, Hanover, Travelers, Chubb, Markel, W.R. Berkley) are quoted verbatim from EDGAR-hosted filings. Accession numbers are recorded so readers can verify the exact filing.
• AM Best Company Profiles and press releases. Rating actions, analyst contact names, and rating-rationale press releases are sourced from ratings.ambest.com and news.ambest.com directly, not from third-party rating recaps.
• SERFF Filing Access. Where a state insurance department's public SERFF portal carries form filings, those filings are the primary source for any claim about a carrier's filed forms in that state. Surplus Lines forms are not always public; we disclose when a form is verifiable only via a non-SERFF surface (e.g., a carrier-hosted PDF or a major insurance-recovery firm's resource library).
• Lloyd's Market Association and Corporation of Lloyd's. Y-prefix market bulletins and LMA model wordings are cited from lloyds.com and lmalloyds.com directly.
• State insurance department bulletins, NAIC Model Bulletin, NYDFS Circular Letters, Colorado ECDIS Regulation 10-1-1. Insurance regulators' AI-specific guidance is cited from each regulator's own publication.

Trade-press coverage (Insurance Journal, Insurance Business America, Business Insurance, Risk & Insurance, Reinsurance News, IA Magazine, ABA Journal, Law360) is treated as a lead, not a citation. A trade-press claim about a carrier's filing or position is verified against a primary source (the carrier's own publication, the SEC filing, the SERFF filing, or the regulator's bulletin) before it appears on the site. Where that primary source cannot be located, the claim is either omitted, attributed explicitly as reported by the trade-press source, or flagged as unverified.

Sources we rely on

Recurring sources behind the tracker, named so readers can audit them directly:

• Damien Charlotin's AI hallucination database: primary lead source for attorney AI sanctions cases. The single most influential outside discovery source for the case corpus. damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations
• Ropes & Gray's AI Court Order Tracker: discovery and cross-validation source for chambers standing orders and court-issued AI guidance. We verify each order against the issuing court's own publication before shipping; substantive write-ups, practitioner implications, and legal analysis are ours. ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker
• State bar associations and state supreme courts: primary source for every state ethics opinion and rule of professional conduct cited on the state pages.
• The Free Law Project (CourtListener, RECAP, and the broader free.law toolchain): nonprofit open-source infrastructure that makes federal docket access feasible without a PACER subscription. Most of the federal AI sanctions orders cited on this site link to a primary PDF on courtlistener.com or storage.courtlistener.com (the RECAP archive). Without Free Law Project, federal-court primary-source verification would be paywalled work behind PACER's per-page fees. free.law
• Federal and state court websites and PACER: primary sources for court orders, dockets, and sanctions opinions where the document is hosted on the issuing court's own server. Where only PACER carries the document and the RECAP archive has not yet picked it up, the entry is flagged as draft pending primary-source verification.
• The American Bar Association: ABA Formal Opinion 512 and related model-rule materials.
• SEC EDGAR, AM Best, SERFF Filing Access, Lloyd's / LMA, NAIC, NYDFS, and state insurance departments: primary sources for the carrier and insurance research underpinning the carrier renewal documentation page.

Open-source tools that make this site possible

The site itself is built on open-source infrastructure that deserves explicit credit. Astro (MIT) is the static site framework. Pagefind (MIT) powers the static search index. The R&G parity audit pipeline at scripts/audit-rg/ uses Jina Reader (Apache 2.0) for plain-text fetches and pypdf (BSD-3) for primary-source PDF text extraction. Discovery work is informed by the Free Law Project's Juriscraper (BSD-2) and eyecite (BSD-2) libraries; both are referenced in our open infrastructure backlog.

Verification cadence

Every entry carries a "last verified" date on the page. State pages and court orders are re-verified on a recurring basis, and immediately when we're notified of a change. Cases are not re-verified after publication unless a docket development changes the disposition (reconsideration, appeal, vacatur); pending cases are revisited when the court rules.

What this site is not

Not legal advice. Not a substitute for consulting a licensed attorney in your state. Not a record of every AI-involved lawsuit; the case tracker is scoped to lawyer- and pro-se-litigant AI hallucination incidents that drew judicial or disciplinary attention. Not a lawyer-edited publication; the editorial standards above compensate, but a partner relying on a specific entry for a filing or compliance decision should verify against the linked primary source.

Reporting an error

If you find a citation that doesn't resolve, a date that's wrong, a claim that overstates the primary source, or a case that should be in the tracker and isn't: email brian@desired-path.com. Corrections are landed within a few days and the entry's verification date is updated on every change.

Last reviewed: 2026-04-29.