Legal AI Newsletter for Attorneys

September 2026 · Catch-up issue, May to September

A $10,000 fine that reaches the firm, a struck appellate brief, and a new E.D. Va. certification

State rules and guidance

• California: The second public comment period on COPRAC's revised amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 closed August 6. As of September 27 the State Bar had published no Board of Trustees action on the package, so the amendments remain proposed; the 2026 Practical Guidance, approved May 14, is the operative version. California entry
• Florida: Comments on amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) closed August 11. The rule has been operative since June 15: each signer of a filing represents that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. Under AOSC26-12, the companion order issued the same day, Florida courts may not impose their own AI disclosure or certification requirements, whether by local order or other means. No further order on the rule had issued as of September 27. Florida entry

Court orders

• E.D. Va., Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck (September 1): in civil cases assigned to her, a party that uses generative AI to prepare a filing must identify that use in the filing and certify that all citations were reviewed for accuracy. The order prescribes no wording and names no sanction. Order entry

Sanctions cases in September

• Fay v. Warren Hospitality Suites (E.D. Mich., September 9): a $10,000 fine jointly against the attorney and his firm, although the firm's head signed none of the filings. The client may not bear any part of it, including through her settlement.
• Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University (D. Utah, September 9): $2,000 and two AI-ethics CLE courses for the drafting attorney, who named ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini among the tools used; $1,000 for co-counsel who did not review the briefing. An errata filed before the show-cause order and a refund of opposing counsel's fees did not avoid sanctions.
• Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (D.C. Court of Appeals, September 3): the appellee's brief was struck for citing four nonexistent cases and the matter referred to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The court rejected a redacted brief as "effectively no sanction at all."
• Aguilar v. The Crawford Group (D. Mass., September 25): the firm pays the Enterprise Defendants' fees and costs for three categories of briefing, capped at $10,000, and counsel's pro hac vice admission is revoked. Counsel said he believed the "enterprise-level version of AI software" he used did not hallucinate cases.

Federal rules to watch

• Proposed FRE 707 (machine-generated evidence): the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules withdrew the rule as published for comment and will take up a modified proposal, alongside a draft deepfake rule, at its October 15 meeting. No rule is in effect. 2026 timeline

Carrier developments

• AmTrust's lawyers professional liability application is still the only one we have reviewed that asks about AI: "Allow the use of Artificial Intelligence software to draft documents. If checked, please attach description." The other applications we reviewed ask nothing about AI. Carrier review as of September 28, 2026. Carrier tracker

Tool note

In Douglas, the attorney said she used Google's generative AI search tool to locate case authority and did not describe using a dedicated drafting product; her firm said it prohibits AI in drafting legal documents. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their AI policy and citation-verification steps reach AI features built into search engines and research platforms.

Citations to primary sources, as always. Reply with corrections or questions.