AI Legal Regulation Timeline
A chronological view of the regulatory clock for US attorney AI use: 141 state bar opinions, court orders, federal and ABA guidance, AI legislation, and watershed sanctions cases. Each entry links to its primary source.
Showing 141 of 141 events across 4 of 4 years.
2026 (20)
-
New York (statewide, all UCS civil and criminal courts): 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology
Use of AI tools by attorneys and parties in preparing court papers should not be prohibited as long as use is consistent with existing duties and responsibilities for submissions.
-
D. Colo.: Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition: Minute Order Denying Constitutional Challenge to D. Colo. AI Standing Order
The District of Colorado's Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings applies to all litigants appearing before the court, including pro se plaintiffs.
-
FL 15th Circuit (Palm Beach): Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach) Administrative Order 2.109-4/26: Use of AI in Court Filings
Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative AI tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court document must disclose such use on the face of the filing.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order: Use of Generative AI Tools (Cases Assigned to Judge Lin)
Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order: Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cisneros)
AI use is not categorically prohibited.
-
FL 18th Circuit (Brevard, Seminole): Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Brevard/Seminole) Administrative Order AO 26-10: Disclosure of Use of Generative AI
Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose use of generative AI on the face of the filing.
-
N.D. Ga.: Civil Standing Order, Section V.c (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Steven D. Grimberg, N.D. Ga.)
Section V.c of Judge Grimberg's civil standing order (under Section V, Trial) addresses artificial intelligence in a single paragraph and does not require disclosure or certification.
-
Texas (90th Judicial District: Young and Stephens Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (90th Judicial District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who use any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, incorporate and certify using the attached form within each pleading generated using artificial intelligence.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil and Discovery Referral Standing Order Section 10: Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge van Keulen)
The signature of counsel or a self-represented party on any submission containing AI-generated content, including AI-generated citations, constitutes a certification that the signing attorney has personally verified the content's accuracy.
-
D. Kan.: U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings
'Litigants are responsible for the content of their own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or portions of court filings.'
-
WI Waukesha County: Waukesha County Standing Order 26-SO-03-67: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Family Division Filings
Any filing prepared using AI must be independently reviewed to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and proper use of applicable law.
-
FL 17th Circuit (Broward): Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward) Administrative Order AO 2026-03-Gen: Use of AI in Court Filings
When AI has been used in preparation, research, drafting of pleadings, drafting of documents, filing of documents, and/or discovery requests, the document must identify the specific AI tool used.
-
FL 6th Circuit (Pinellas), Family Court Section 22 only: Sixth Judicial Circuit (Pinellas) Family Court Section 22 Standing Order on the Use of AI in Legal Filings
Mandatory disclosure when AI is used for legal research reflected in text, drafting any portion, or summarizing legal sources or facts; the filing must include a 'Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use' identifying each tool by name (e.g., ChatGPT, Lexis+ AI, Westlaw AI), describing manner of use, stating whether AI text appears directly in the document, and affirming no confidential or privileged information was inputted.
-
FL 11th Circuit (Miami-Dade): Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) Administrative Order AO 26-04: Use of Generative AI in Court Filings
Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative AI tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record must disclose such use on the face of the filing.
-
C.D. Cal.: Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules in Criminal Cases § 1.e: AI Disclosure (Cases Assigned to Judge Ho)
Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of AI.
-
D. Nev.: First Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices, Section III (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, D. Nev.)
Counsel or pro se party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical obligations.
-
S.D. Cal. (Bankruptcy): S.D. Cal. Bankruptcy General Order No. 210, In Re: Filings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence
Effective January 1, 2026, any pleading, motion, or paper (whether moving, opposing, or in reply) that the filer prepared in any aspect by using a generative AI program must be accompanied by an attestation or certification signed by the filer.
-
D. Colo.: D. Colo. Standing Order for Civil Cases (Judge Crews): Certification Re: Use of Generative AI for Drafting
Every substantive motion, including but not necessarily limited to motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 56, and 65, and the corresponding response and reply, shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing.
-
MT 13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County): Montana 13th Judicial District Court (Yellowstone County), Local Rule 35: Artificial Intelligence
'If an attorney for a party or a self-represented party has used generative Artificial Intelligence (hereafter "AI") in the preparation of any document filed with the 13th Judicial District Court, they MUST, identify the type of AI used and CERTIFY every citation to the law or record in the filing has been verified as accurate.'
2025 (49)
-
Cabarrus County, NC: 22nd Superior Court District (Cabarrus County) Revised Administrative Order 25-09
No disclosure required for AI use in drafting pleadings and advocacy-related documents that are not used as evidence.
-
Pa. Commw. Ct.: 1172 C.D. 2025: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Memorandum Opinion on Use of Generative AI by Attorneys
Attorneys must verify every citation before filing; Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (Pennsylvania Bar Association / Philadelphia Bar Association) requires verification of AI-generated citations.
-
D. Colo.: AI Guidance (Hon. Maritza Dominguez Braswell, D. Colo.)
Document is styled as 'guidance,' not a strict standing order, and does not impose a new pre-filing certification requirement.
-
D. Colo.: Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (Hon. Nina Y. Wang, D. Colo.)
Every filing must contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting.
-
E.D. Tex.: E.D. Tex. General Order 25-07, Amending Local Rule CV-11(g): Generative AI
All litigants are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative AI.
-
FL 19th Circuit (Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie): Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2025-10: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings
Any filing drafted in whole or in part with the assistance of AI technology must contain a clear disclosure on the face of the document specifying AI technology was used (e.g., drafting, editing, citing, cite-checking).
-
Virginia: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Virginia has informal VSB guidance (Aug 2024) plus binding Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 on fees, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia in November 2025. LEO 1901 expressly departs from ABA Formal Opinion 512 and North Carolina 2024 FEO 1: value-based fees are permissible even when AI dramatically reduces time, and attorneys are not required to reduce flat fees solely because AI was used. The verification duty is restated alongside this billing flexibility.
-
Washington: WSBA Advisory Opinion 202505: Ethical Considerations for Lawyers Using AI-Enabled Tools
Washington has one formal advisory opinion (WSBA AO 202505, November 2025) mapping seven core professional duties to AI use, plus a Legal Technology Task Force final report. No binding court rule or statewide AI disclosure requirement exists, though the Western District of Washington issued a show-cause order in February 2026 for AI hallucinations in Ledoux v. Outliers. New legislation (HB 2225, effective Jan 1 2027) creates consumer protection liability for law firms using AI chatbots without adequate disclosure.
-
E.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order and Trial Procedures: AI Provisions (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Kim)
Virtual backgrounds, avatars, digital twins, or the use of any tool or AI to alter an individual's appearance or voice are prohibited in virtual proceedings.
-
MT 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties): Montana 4th Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties), Local Rule 3(G): Pleading Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
'Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who uses generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of a pleading or document filed with the court must disclose the use of "generative artificial intelligence": the specific tool the party used; how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document; and that the party certifies they have checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Civil Rules § J: AI in Filings (Cases Assigned to Judge Broderick)
Any party (pro se or counseled) who utilizes any generative AI tool in preparing documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Civil Rules § 2.E: AI Certification (Cases Assigned to Judge Cronan)
All litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any output produced in whole or in part by an AI tool.
-
New York (statewide unified court system): New York State Unified Court System Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
UCS users may use only those generative AI products that have been approved by the UCS Division of Technology and Court Research (DoTCR), which are identified in the attached Appendix.
-
D.N.M.: Standing Order Establishing Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Strickland)
Any party, whether pro se or counseled, who uses any generative AI tool in preparing documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool used.
-
D. Conn.: D. Conn. Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI
All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law.
-
PA (statewide judicial branch): Pa. Sup. Ct. Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel
This Policy applies to Personnel using GenAI on UJS Technology Resources. The purpose of this Policy is to promote and ensure the safe and appropriate use of GenAI by Personnel.
-
C.D. Cal.: Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang
Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use.
-
N.D. Tex.: N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f): Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
A brief prepared using generative AI must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading 'Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.'
-
Cal. (statewide): California Rules of Court, Rule 10.430 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies)
Each California superior, appellate, and supreme court must adopt a written generative-AI use policy by December 15, 2025, or prohibit the use of generative AI.
-
Cal. (statewide): California Rules of Court, Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80 (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers)
Judicial officers should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information (SSNs, dates of birth, addresses, medical information, sealed documents) into a public generative AI system.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section H: Use of Generative AI Tools (Cases Assigned to Judge Lee)
Use of ChatGPT or other generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means.
-
S.D. Ohio: Standing Civil/Criminal Orders Re Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Newman)
No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.
-
EOIR (Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals; nationwide): EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-40 (OOD): Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings
EOIR has neither a blanket prohibition on the use of generative AI in its proceedings nor a mandatory disclosure requirement regarding its use.
-
U.S. Court of International Trade: Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Kelly)
Applies to any submission containing text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program on the basis of natural language prompts (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard).
-
U.S. Court of International Trade: Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Restani)
Applies to any submission containing text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program on the basis of natural language prompts (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard).
Show 24 more from 2025
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section C: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Kang)
Any brief or pleading drafted with any AI tool must be identified as such in its title or pleading caption, in a table preceding the body text, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously.
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs and Proposed Orders in Judge Schwall's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
Order applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Schwall's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).
-
C.D. Cal.: Initial Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin)
Use of any AI tool (broader than 'generative') in the preparation of any filing triggers an automatic certification.
-
S.D. Tex. (Laredo Division): Court Procedures in Criminal Cases, Section 7: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge John A. Kazen)
Attorneys and self-represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared with the assistance of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools) is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission.
-
M.D. Pa.: Standing Order on Use of Generative AI (Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, M.D. Pa.)
Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Latella must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.
-
D. Wyo.: U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, General Order 25-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Preparation of Filings
The order reminds 'all litigants that appear in this court, represented or pro se, of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 requires legal contentions in documents filed with a court be warranted by existing law.'
-
D.N.M.: D.N.M. Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge Gonzales)
I find it necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this Court of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that the legal contentions in papers they sign and file with the Court are warranted by existing law.
-
S.D. Tex.: General Order 2025-04, In Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings
Attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting any pleading, motion, or other paper drafted using generative AI without checking the submission for accuracy.
-
Fla. Cir. (17th JC, Broward Cnty.): 17th Judicial Circuit (Florida) Administrative Order 2024-26-Civ Amendment 2 (AI Disclosure and Verification Provision)
If any attorney or pro se party submits a filing or submission containing AI-generated content, the attorney or pro se party must disclose the use of artificial intelligence on the face of the document.
-
Alaska: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law
Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 addresses competence, confidentiality, billing, supervision, and court-disclosure obligations for attorneys using generative AI. It requires informed client consent before inputting client confidences into AI tools and verification of all AI-generated output. The opinion is advisory and broadly aligned with ABA Formal Opinion 512.
-
N.D. Ga.: Civil Standing Order, Section 3.A (Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson, N.D. Ga.)
All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.
-
South Carolina (statewide judicial branch): South Carolina Supreme Court Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may only use Generative AI tools and systems in the performance of their Judicial Branch duties that are approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration.
-
Texas (21st and 335th Judicial Districts: Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (21st and 335th Judicial District Courts of Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties)
All attorneys and self-represented litigants who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form certifying compliance.
-
E.D. Pa.: Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence (Judge Kai N. Scott, E.D. Pa.)
Applies when generative AI is used in a citation of any legal authority filed with the Court.
-
Texas (statewide, Business Court only): Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c): Artificial Intelligence
Use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited.
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Niagara Cnty.): Hon. Michael J. Norris Court Rules (Generative AI Disclosure)
Any party who uses a generative AI tool in preparation of any documents filed with the court must disclose the use of AI.
-
Oregon: Artificial Intelligence Tools
OSB Formal Opinion 2025-205 establishes a comprehensive framework covering competence, confidentiality, billing, supervision, and candor. Oregon has produced four published sanctions cases in 2025-2026, including the Couvrette v. Wisnovsky federal sanctions (~$110,000 total, April 2026, the largest in Oregon federal court history) and the Doiban v. OLCC $10,000 record sanction (March 2026, Oregon Court of Appeals). Proposed amendments to ORAP 1.40 and 13.25 would codify sanctions for fabricated law and facts.
-
Texas: Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705
Texas has formal Ethics Opinion 705 (Feb 2025), a comprehensive TRAIL task force report, and the most developed federal court AI rule framework of any state, with binding local rules in three of four federal districts. A Dallas attorney was sanctioned in October 2025 under N.D. Tex. Rule 7.2(f) for undisclosed AI use. TLIE has published multiple AI-specific risk advisories.
-
D.N.J.: Confidentiality Order, ¶ 8 (Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust v. American General Life Ins. Co.) (Hon. Michael A. Hammer, D.N.J.)
Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only (AEO) material may only be used in an AI tool if the receiving party first confirms in writing to the producing party that the AI tool meets all the order's compliance pathways.
-
M.D. Pa.: Standing Order on Use of Generative AI (Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo, M.D. Pa.)
Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Caraballo must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.
-
Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence
President Trump signed EO 14179, revoking EO 14110 and directing agencies to dismantle AI policies framed as innovation barriers. Resets the federal AI regulatory direction; downstream NIST and agency products require fresh review.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civility and Professionalism Standing Order Section VII: Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Thompson)
AI use is not prohibited; counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any AI-assisted work product.
-
Illinois (statewide): Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence
AI use 'may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards.'
-
E.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules ¶ 1.B.4: AI Caution (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Dunst)
Parties are cautioned that any use of AI resources in connection with submissions to the Court must comply with their professional obligations to the Court.
2024 (52)
-
M.D. Fla.: Case Management and Scheduling Order, paragraphs 11-12 (Soehlig v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.) (Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger, M.D. Fla.)
Reasonableness inquiry under Rule 11(b)(2) is not satisfied by mere reliance on generative AI; signing a filing constitutes certification of the matters in Rule 11.
-
Texas (109th Judicial District: Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (109th Judicial District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form.
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (N.Y. Cnty.): Hon. Tandra L. Dawson IDV Part Rules (Use of Artificial Intelligence)
If AI is used to prepare any document submitted for filing with the court that involves substantive legal research and writing (such as a legal memorandum, summation, etc.), counsel or a pro se litigant shall submit an affirmation at the end of the document stating that AI, such as ChatGPT, was used in preparation of the document.
-
D. Neb.: U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: NECivR 7.1(d) Generative AI and Certificate of Compliance
All parties are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their legal briefing, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence programs drafted any portion of that filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
-
Mississippi: Ethics Opinion No. 267
Mississippi has Ethics Opinion No. 267 (November 14, 2024) covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, and client disclosure. The opinion identifies three specific circumstances triggering mandatory client disclosure and informed consent and imposes an affirmative duty to verify AI output accuracy. Mississippi has produced two high-profile AI enforcement incidents: Judge Wingate's law clerk used Perplexity AI to draft a defective court order (S.D. Miss., July 2025), and attorney Greta Kemp Martin was sanctioned over $20,000 for submitting AI-hallucinated citations (N.D. Miss., 2025).
-
North Carolina: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice
North Carolina has one of the most actionable formal AI ethics opinions in the country. 2024 FEO 1 addresses competence, vendor vetting with specific questions, billing, supervision, and a nuanced informed-consent rule that distinguishes substantive AI delegation from routine research. A binding W.D.N.C. federal certification rule and a Cabarrus County state-court evidence-disclosure rule add court-side obligations on top of the bar opinion.
-
M.D. Pa.: Standing Order on Use of Generative AI (Judge Karoline Mehalchick, M.D. Pa.)
Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Mehalchick must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.
-
D. Colo.: Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Filings (Hon. Susan Prose, D. Colo.)
In addition to a Certification of Conferral, in cases where parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, every motion filed under FRCP 12, FRCP 56, or to amend a pleading, and any opposed motion (including the corresponding response and reply), shall contain a Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing, including any proposed amended pleadings.
-
IL 22nd Circuit (McHenry County): 22nd Judicial Circuit (McHenry County) Administrative Order 2024-23: Artificial Intelligence Policy and Plan
Participants and professionals in cases in this Circuit shall consider the admonitions in the order and engage AI carefully, especially with regard to the rules that govern AI use directly and indirectly.
-
S.D.N.Y. (Bankruptcy): S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Local Rule 9011-1(d): Generative AI
Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology, including generative AI services such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI Chat.
-
California AB 2013: Generative AI Training Data Transparency
Governor Newsom signed AB 2013, requiring developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians to publish documentation describing training data. Compliance required on or before January 1, 2026.
-
New Mexico: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
The State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee issued Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 in September 2024 permitting responsible AI use subject to substantive conditions on confidentiality, conflict screening, billing, supervision, and candor. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has a standing order requiring AI disclosure and accuracy certification. Hallucination sanctions have already been imposed in D.N.M. federal court.
-
C.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter)
Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use.
-
California SB 942: California AI Transparency Act
Governor Newsom signed SB 942, requiring providers of generative AI systems with significant California users to offer free AI-detection tools and to apply manifest disclosures or latent watermarks to GAI-generated content. Operative January 1, 2026.
-
S.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Todd W. Robinson)
Acknowledges that generative AI tools may produce filings 'replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law' if used without verification.
-
FTC ALJ: Scheduling Order Mandatory Certification Regarding Use of Generative AI (Federal Trade Commission, ALJ Jane H. Ayoubi)
Each motion, opposition, reply, or other paper filed with the FTC ALJ must be accompanied by a certification under one of two attestations: either (1) no portion of the filing was drafted by generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini), or (2) any language in the filing that was drafted by generative AI was checked for accuracy by human attorneys or paralegals using printed legal reporters and/or online legal databases.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order, Section VIII.G (Use of Generative AI Tools) (Hon. Erin K. Lee, N.D. Cal.)
Use of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means.
-
New York: Generative AI in the Practice of Law
New York has the most layered AI ethics landscape of any state. NYC Bar Formal Opinions 2024-5 (generative AI) and 2025-6 (AI recording/transcription), the NYSBA Task Force Report (April 2024), and binding 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026) together establish a detailed standard. Part 161 sets a system-wide no-disclosure policy and authorizes individual courts to adopt a Model Rule (Appendix A) under which a signature certifies the paper contains no fabricated AI content; that certification is per-court, not statewide. Pending S2698 would impose mandatory AI disclosure in civil filings.
-
Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (394th Judicial District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form, certifying compliance.
-
ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools
ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued the controlling national guidance on generative AI tools, mapping competence, confidentiality, communication, fees, supervision, and candor duties to GAI use.
-
NIST Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1)
NIST released the Generative AI Profile, a companion to the AI RMF 1.0 covering risks specific to generative AI systems including hallucination, data leakage, and dual-use concerns. Developed pursuant to Executive Order 14110.
-
MO 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County): Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County), Local Rule 3.3.1: Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use
'Any person who submits a pleading or filing with the Court using any generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) tool to: (a) conduct the legal research referenced in the pleading; or (b) to draft a pleading or documents, must disclose to the Court that A.I. was used.'
-
N.D. Ala.: Initial Order, Section XI (Use of AI to Create Court Submissions) (Hon. Madeline Hughes Haikala, N.D. Ala.)
Lawyers and pro se litigants who use technology like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or other generative AI services to prepare documents that the parties file in the record are cautioned that generative AI technologies sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Kings Cnty.): Justice Aaron D. Maslow Part 2 Rules, §C15 (Artificial Intelligence Programs)
All submissions on a motion must include a certification either that no generative AI was used in drafting any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law, or that AI was used but all generated text (including citations, quotations, and legal analysis) was reviewed for accuracy and approved by an attorney or pro se party.
-
W.D.N.C.: W.D.N.C. Standing Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence
Every brief or memorandum filed must include a certification stating that no artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of the document, with the exception of AI embedded in the standard online legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg.
Show 27 more from 2024
-
West Virginia: L.E.O. 24-01: Artificial Intelligence
West Virginia's L.E.O. 24-01 (June 2024) is among the most detailed state AI ethics opinions in the country and is notable for an explicit requirement that client consent to use generative AI be informed and confirmed in writing. A companion JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 instructs judges to treat AI as a 'law clerk' useful for research but never for deciding cases. No court-wide AI standing orders exist in West Virginia.
-
KS 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County): Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence
Filers using generative AI must 'verify that any language, materials or content that was generated was checked for accuracy, using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.'
-
5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice): Fifth Circuit Court Decision on Proposed Local Rule 32.3: AI in Briefs
The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time.
-
Pennsylvania: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Pennsylvania has a joint formal advisory opinion (Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, May 2024), a binding Pennsylvania Supreme Court Interim Policy governing judicial AI use (effective December 2025), and an active enforcement record including a Commonwealth Court brief-striking opinion (December 2025). Pennsylvania appears in our AI sanctions case tracker at one of the higher rates among US states; see the AI hallucination cases section below for the live count.
-
Hamilton County, Ohio (county-wide common pleas, including Commercial Docket): Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas Local Rule 49: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Attorneys and parties must disclose the use of AI-assisted technology in the creation or editing of any document or evidence submitted to the court.
-
Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205): Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence
Governor Polis signed SB 24-205, the first comprehensive state AI law. Imposes risk management, impact assessment, and disclosure obligations on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. Substantive provisions take effect February 1, 2026.
-
E.D. Pa.: Section I.G.3 (Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence) of Judge Kelley B. Hodge's Judicial Policies and Procedures, E.D. Pa.
Anyone (counsel or pro se litigant) using generative AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper or in serving discovery must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).
-
Missouri: Lawyer's Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Missouri has Informal Opinion 2024-11 (April 25, 2024) from the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri, two published Court of Appeals sanctions cases for AI-hallucinated citations (Kruse v. Karlen, February 2024, $10,000 sanction; Stevens v. BJC Health System, March 2025), and circuit-level AI disclosure rules in at least four judicial circuits. The Eastern District of Missouri has an AI accountability policy on its website. No statewide Missouri rule requires AI disclosure.
-
USPTO (PTAB, TTAB, and patent/trademark practice): USPTO Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Practitioners must review AI-drafted submissions and verify factual and legal accuracy under 37 CFR 11.18(b), which governs every paper filed at the USPTO.
-
USPTO Guidance on Use of AI Tools in Practice Before the USPTO
USPTO issued guidance on attorney use of AI tools when practicing before the office, addressing duties of candor, signature, and confidentiality. Directly binding on patent practitioners; persuasive for attorneys before other federal agencies.
-
Cook County, Ill. (Chancery): Calendar 9 Courtroom Procedures, AI Provision (Hon. Cecilia A. Horan, Cook County)
Any use of large language model artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT) in the preparation of briefs or other submissions must be indicated in the caption of the motion, brief, or other filing.
-
N.D. Ill.: Case Management Procedures, AI Provision (Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, N.D. Ill.)
Parties may not use Artificial Intelligence to draft their memoranda.
-
District of Columbia: Attorneys' Use of Generative AI in Client Matters
DC has a formal ethics opinion (Opinion 388, April 2024) and binding RPC amendments (Order M284-24, effective April 7, 2025) codifying technology competence and vendor oversight obligations into the rules. Opinion 388 covers competence, confidentiality vetting, supervision, billing, and candor. Neither the D.D.C. nor the D.C. Circuit has a court-wide AI standing order.
-
Texas (89th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (89th Judicial District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI.
-
Texas (30th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (30th District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI.
-
Texas (78th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (78th District)
All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI.
-
Kentucky: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024) takes one of the strongest competence positions of any state bar opinion, stating that failing to use an available AI tool "may constitute a failure to meet the lawyer's duty of attaining and maintaining competence." It is labeled "interim" while the KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence continues its work. No court-wide AI standing orders exist in Kentucky.
-
Cook County, Ill. (Law): Standing Order on Jury Trials, AI Provision (Hon. Gerald V. Cleary III, Cook County Law Division)
A party submitting any document, motion, brief or memoranda to the Court must disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used in the creation of the document.
-
USPTO Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions
USPTO issued guidance on inventorship for AI-assisted inventions, holding that natural persons must make a significant contribution for an invention to be patentable. Limits attorney representations on AI-generated subject matter.
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Chautauqua Cnty.): Hon. Grace M. Hanlon Courtroom Rules (Disclosing Use of Artificial Intelligence; Amended to Part 161 Reference)
Effective June 1, 2026, filers must refer to 22 NYCRR Part 161 (and Appendix A) for guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence.
-
Park v. Kim
The Second Circuit referred Lee to the court's Grievance Panel for possible discipline (which may include fines or suspension) and ordered her to furnish a copy of the decision to her client. The court also dismissed the underlying appeal as frivolous and for failure to comply with court rules.
-
New Jersey (statewide): New Jersey Supreme Court Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers
Lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools before use, consistent with the duty of competence under RPC 1.1.
-
Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.): Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (Hon. Kimberly A. Knill)
Any attorney or self-represented party who has used generative AI (including ChatGPT or Google Bard) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with Department C31 MUST disclose that AI has been used.
-
Florida: Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 requires attorneys to disclose AI use when it affects billing, maintain AI governance policies, and protect client confidentiality. It is one of the first formal state bar opinions on generative AI and is widely cited.
-
Texas (Bexar County, Civil District Courts only): Bexar County Civil District Courts Local Rule 3(H)(1): A.I. Certification
All pleadings shall include a certificate on the form approved by the Civil District Court Judges and available on the Presiding Court website, signed by the attorney.
-
E.D.N.Y.: Motion Rules ¶ 3: AI Provision (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Lindsay)
Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any attorney or pro se party who has used AI in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used.
-
Cuyahoga County, OH: Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge John J. Russo: Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements (Generative AI)
I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that I have read and will comply with all judge-specific requirements for Judge John J. Russo, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.
2023 (20)
-
N.D. Ill.: Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Iain D. Johnston, N.D. Ill.)
Anyone (counsel and unrepresented parties alike) using AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or in serving discovery must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).
-
N.D. Ohio: Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Boyko)
No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.
-
N.D. Tex. (Amarillo Division): Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk)
Attorneys and pro se litigants must file a certificate together with their notice of appearance attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language (including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis) will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Martínez-Olguín), Section H.4: Use of AI
Counsel must provide complete and accurate representations in any submission, consistent with Rule 11 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
-
California: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
The State Bar of California issued practical guidance covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, and candor obligations when using generative AI. The guidance is non-binding but widely followed. COPRAC approved proposed binding rule amendments for public comment on 2026-03-13; comment period closes 2026-05-04, with a Board of Trustees vote to follow.
-
D. Haw.: U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii General Order 23-1: In Re: Use of Unverified Sources
Briefs and memoranda generated by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms (for example, ChatGPT or Bard) and online briefs or memoranda drafted by persons compensated to produce materials not tailored to specific cases are collectively defined as 'unverified sources.'
-
D.N.J.: General Pretrial and Trial Procedures, Section I.B (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Evelyn Padin, D.N.J.)
Use of any GAI (e.g., OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's Bard) in any court filings requires a mandatory disclosure and certification.
-
E.D. Tex.: E.D. Tex. General Order 23-11: Amending Local Civil Rule CV-11(g) (Use of Technology by Pro Se Litigants) and Local Rule AT-3(m) (Standards of Practice)
Local Civil Rule CV-11(g) (Use of Technology by Pro Se Litigants): Pro se litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services).
-
Executive Order 14110: Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence
President Biden signed EO 14110 directing federal agencies to develop AI safety standards, civil-rights protections, and acquisition rules. Set the federal AI regulatory direction until revoked by EO 14179 in January 2025.
-
D. Haw.: AI Guidelines (Cases Assigned to Judge Kobayashi)
Any party, whether pro se or counseled, who uses any generative AI tool in preparing documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool used.
-
E.D. Okla.: Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence (Hon. Jason A. Robertson, E.D. Okla.)
Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used.
-
W.D. Okla. Bankr.: General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (W.D. Okla. Bankr.)
Any document filed with the Court that has been drafted utilizing a generative AI program (including but not limited to ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) must be accompanied by an attestation.
-
W.D. Okla.: W.D. Okla. Disclosure and Certification Requirements (Judge Palk): Generative Artificial Intelligence
Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used.
-
N.D. Ill.: Artificial Intelligence Standing Order (Magistrate Judge Jeffrey N. Cole, N.D. Ill.)
Any party using AI in the preparation of materials submitted to the court must disclose in the filing that an AI tool was used to conduct legal research and/or was used in any way in the preparation of the submitted document.
-
Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
$5,000 joint-and-several Rule 11 sanction; letters to plaintiff and to each falsely-named judge required.
-
N.D. Tex. (Bankruptcy): N.D. Tex. Bankruptcy General Order 2023-03: Pleadings Using Generative AI
If any portion of a pleading or other paper filed on the Court's docket has been drafted utilizing generative AI (including ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard), all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such papers must verify that any AI-generated language was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.
-
U.S. Court of International Trade: Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Vaden)
Any submission in a case assigned to Judge Vaden that contains text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program (including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard) must include a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portions of text so drafted.
-
E.D. Pa.: Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson
If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, they must disclose in a clear and plain factual statement that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing.
-
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
NIST released the AI Risk Management Framework 1.0, the federal government's first comprehensive AI risk-management standard. Voluntary but widely adopted as a benchmark for governance, mapping, and measurement of AI-system risks.
-
Idaho OAH: Policy No. 23-1: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings)
Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, are prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and chatbots (including but not limited to ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer.
No events match the current filter.
Drill into a tracker
- State bar AI guidance: formal and informal opinions, all 50 states plus DC, with primary-source citations.
- Court orders on AI: federal and state standing orders, local rules, and decisions binding attorney filings.
- AI hallucination cases: court sanctions, bar discipline, and admonishments tied to AI-generated false citations.
- Data exports: CSV, JSON, and RSS feeds for the trackers behind this timeline.