AI Legal Regulation Timeline
A chronological view of the regulatory clock for US attorney AI use: 289 state bar opinions, court orders, federal and ABA guidance, AI legislation, and watershed sanctions cases. Each entry links to its primary source.
Jump to year
Showing 289 of 289 events across 4 of 4 years.
2026 (114)
-
California SB 574: Generative AI Duties for Attorneys and Arbitrators
SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858), approved September 30, 2026, adds Business and Professions Code section 6068.1: attorneys using generative AI must protect nonpublic information, take reasonable steps to verify outputs, and disclose AI use to the court. Effective January 1, 2027.
-
Wisconsin Rule Petition 26-06 Proposes Equal Access to AI Tools for Litigants
A petition asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to create SCR 76.20 to 76.24, giving all litigants a right to use AI tools in court filings and barring local rules that restrict litigants' AI use while permitting it for attorneys or court staff. Not yet scheduled for hearing.
-
C.D. Cal.: Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang
Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Claude) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must review the source material and verify that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations.
-
E.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices and Rules, Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding Artificial Intelligence (Judge Orelia E. Merchant, E.D.N.Y.)
'The Court has a zero-tolerance policy for any filings that include AI-generated hallucinations, fabricated legal propositions, or severe misstatements of the law.'
-
Bexar County, Texas (Statutory Probate Courts): Local Rules for the Statutory Probate Courts of Bexar County, Chapter 14 (Artificial Intelligence)
Chapter 14: 'Use of Artificial Intelligence is not prohibited, but the filing attorney or party is independently responsible for the accuracy of all filings and must comply with all legal and ethical duties, including TRCP 13 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapters 9 – 10.'
-
D. Colo.: Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings (Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, D. Colo.)
'In cases before this court in which the parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, every filing shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.'
-
10th Cir.: Tenth Circuit Proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4): Generative AI Review Representation (2027 Rules, Public Comment Draft)
Proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4): by presenting a brief, motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party would certify that 'any document prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence has been reviewed', before filing or submission to the court, 'by a human who has independently verified the existence of all cited authorities; the accuracy of all quotations, citations, and legal analysis; and the document's compliance with all relevant rules and ethical obligations.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules of Practice, Section 12 (Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Cathy Seibel, S.D.N.Y.)
'Although the use of ChatGPT and other such generative artificial intelligence ("AI") tools is not prohibited, unqualified reliance on such tools may result in filings containing fabricated, inaccurate or misleading case citations, quotations and/or propositions.'
-
Angelina County, Texas (159th and 217th Judicial District Courts): Amended Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (159th and 217th Judicial District Courts, Angelina County, Texas)
The amended order 'applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of Angelina County.'
-
E.D. Mo.: Judge's Requirements, Section 14 (AI Usage) (Hon. Maria A. Lanahan, E.D. Mo.)
'All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must ensure the accuracy and reliability of all filings drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) and that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence is fully checked for accuracy by a human being, using print reporters or traditional legal databases.'
-
N.D. Tex.: Judge Specific Requirements, Artificial Intelligence (Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle, N.D. Tex.)
'No text generated by artificial intelligence may be used in any portion of any pleading, motion, brief, or other filing made by an attorney before Judge Boyle.'
-
E.D. Va.: Standing Order: In re Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck, E.D. Va.)
'This Standing Order applies to all civil cases that are assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.'
-
N.D. Ga.: Instructions for Cases Assigned to the Honorable Steve C. Jones, Section II.F: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence (N.D. Ga.)
'All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.'
-
Cook County, Ill. (Chancery): Standing Order for Judge John H. Ehrlich, General Chancery Calendar 9, AI Provision (Cook County)
'Citations, holdings, and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence will result in the submission being stricken and may result in sanctions being imposed.'
-
Hays County, Texas (County Courts at Law, probate and guardianship proceedings): Administrative Order Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings, No. O-12-005 (County Courts at Law of Hays County, Texas)
The order applies to 'all attorneys, personal representatives, guardians, applicants, and pro se litigants appearing before the Hays County Courts at Law in probate and guardianship proceedings.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Section 7 (Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Nelson S. Román, S.D.N.Y.)
'Any party utilizing an AI tool in drafting a document which is to be submitted to the Court must inform the Court of its use and identify which portion of the document was created or generated with the use of the AI tool.'
-
Panola County, Texas (County Court at Law and County Court): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence in the County Court at Law and County Court of Panola County, Texas
'ATTORNEYS AND SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS MAY NOT RELY ON THE PRODUCT OF LEGAL RESEARCH PERFORMED USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLEGENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AND CONFIRMED TO BE ACCURATE BY A HUMAN BEING'.
-
D. Nev.: Second Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices, Section III (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, D. Nev.)
Any counsel or 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.
-
Erath County, Texas (266th Judicial District Court): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (266th Judicial District Court, Erath County, Texas)
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 266th Judicial District Court of Erath County, Texas.'
-
D. Wyo.: D. Wyo. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d): Use of Artificial Intelligence
'Counsel or a party to a criminal proceeding who utilize artificial intelligence ("AI") technology is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factual or legally inaccurate content.'
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs and Proposed Orders in Judge Emadi's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
Applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Emadi's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).
-
E.D. Mo.: Judge's Requirements, Section 15 (Use of Artificial Intelligence and Rule 11 Sanctions) (Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, E.D. Mo.)
'By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper', whether 'by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it', 'self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence (AI). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).'
-
W.D.N.C.: W.D.N.C. Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (No. 3:24-mc-104, Doc. 2)
'Attorneys and pro se parties may employ AI or other technological assistance for conducting legal research or drafting pleadings and briefs.' But any attorney or pro se party filing any document 'is deemed to have certified to the Court' that: (a) 'All factual contentions have evidentiary support'; (b) 'All legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for its extension, modification, or reversal'; (c) 'All authorities cited actually exist, are accurately cited, and are accurately represented'; and (d) 'All quotations from evidence or authorities are verbatim accurate, except as specifically disclosed.'
-
E.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices, Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding Artificial Intelligence (Judge Hector Gonzalez, E.D.N.Y.)
'The Court has a zero-tolerance policy for any filings that include AI-generated hallucinations, fabricated legal propositions, or severe misstatements of the law.'
-
Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties): Updated Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (394th Judicial District, Judge Monty Kimball)
'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a Court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form.'
Show 89 more from 2026
-
Iowa (statewide): Iowa Court Rules Chapter 27: Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Rule 27.104(1): 'A judicial officer must maintain independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate responsibility or defer to the work product prepared by use of an artificial intelligence tool in the performance of the judicial officer's adjudicative duties.'
-
E.D. Tex.: Standing Order MC-11: Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Marcia A. Crone, E.D. Tex.)
The requirement applies to 'all parties' when they submit a filing, whether 'represented or appearing pro se in criminal cases and/or civil cases.'
-
Indiana (statewide): Indiana Supreme Court Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure (Cause No. 26S-MS-8)
Trial Rule 11(B) (attorneys): 'The signature of an attorney certifies that the attorney has read the pleading, motion, or other submission' and, among other things, 'that any cited legal authority is authentic.'
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Case Management Order, Family Division 2, Paragraph 13 (AI) (Fulton County Superior Court, Judge McBurney)
'You are free to rely on AI in drafting your pleadings and preparing your work product; you do not need to disclose your reliance on AI in your filings.'
-
Texas (30th, 78th and 89th Judicial Districts: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Joint Order of the 30th, 78th and 89th District Courts, Wichita County)
'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the form hereinbelow as an attachment to each pleading generated utilizing artificial intelligence.'
-
MT 15th Judicial District (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties): Montana 15th Judicial District Court (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties), Rule 3(N): Use of Artificial Intelligence/Disclosure
'Therefore, in the event any document submitted for filing has been prepared, in whole or in part with the assistance of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) service or chatbot, such as ChatGPT, such party shall clearly disclose that fact to the court in the document, and further certify, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, that "the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law."'
-
Connecticut (statewide): Connecticut Rules of Appellate Procedure Sections 60-4, 62-6 and 85-2: Generative Artificial Intelligence
Section 60-4: '"Generative Artificial Intelligence" or "generative AI" shall have the same meaning as used in Section 4-9.'
-
Texas (statewide): Texas Supreme Court Misc. Docket No. 26-9054: Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and Tex. R. App. P. 9 and 52
Proposed Tex. R. Civ. P. 13(c)(1): 'By signing a court filing, the signer represents to the court that: (1) the signer reviewed the filing and verified its accuracy, including that the legal citations, quotations, and holdings are not fabricated.'
-
W.D. Tex.: Standing Order Concerning the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Preparation of Filings Before U.S. District Judge Ernest Gonzalez (W.D. Tex.)
The order 'extends the certification requirements of Section 11(a)' of the Court's Standing Order in Criminal Cases 'to parties appearing before the Court in all cases, including civil cases.'
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Filings and Proposed Orders for Cases in Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
Governs 'the preparation of all motions, briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in this Court's criminal and civil dockets,' and 'applies to all attorneys and all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se parties).'
-
Rockwall County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence for any Court Filing (Rockwall County District Courts and County Courts at Law)
'If any attorney for a party or self-represented party has utilized Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in any way for the preparation of any filed documents with the Court, the party SHALL, in a clear and concise sworn factual statement, disclose that AI was utilized in the preparation of the filing and CERTIFY that each and every citation to the law, or the record in the filed document, has been verified and is accurate.'
-
W.D.N.C.: Judge Matthew E. Orso, Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (Revised 6/2026), Section II.F: Use of AI
'An attorney and/or a paralegal acting at the attorney's discretion (or the party making the filing if acting pro se) must check every statement and citation in a document filed with the Court for accuracy.'
-
Rhode Island: Interim Guidelines on the Ethical Use of Generative AI (lawyers and judicial officers)
The Rhode Island Supreme Court acted on 2026-06-17, amending Article V Rule 1.1 Comment [6] to add the technology-competence duty and adopting two sets of Interim Guidelines on the ethical use of generative AI, one for lawyers and one for judicial officers. The rule amendment is binding; the Guidelines expressly "neither amend Article V... nor carry the force of law." The Guidelines decline to require client disclosure on every AI use, but they say a lawyer must disclose GAI use when a client asks or when the lawyer enters client information into a GAI system. There is still no numbered Rhode Island bar ethics opinion on AI.
-
Rhode Island (statewide): In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines (R.I.)
Comment [6] to Rule 1.1 now provides that a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, 'including the benefits and risks associated with existing and developing technology.'
-
N.D.W.Va.: Standing Order: In re Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Review Criminal Discovery (Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh, N.D. W. Va.)
Applies, 'effective as of the date of this Standing Order, and until such time as the Court orders otherwise', to 'all criminal actions filed in this Court.'
-
N.D. Ala.: Initial Order, Part IV (Warning Regarding Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Anna M. Manasco, N.D. Ala.)
If 'any filing contains false statements of fact or law generated by artificial intelligence, counsel whose names appear in the signature block for such filing may be ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court's inherent authority, Local Rule 83.1(f), and/or Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3.'
-
Connecticut (statewide): Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance
Any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI.
-
S.D. Iowa: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance and FAQs
'Parties are personally responsible for verifying the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of their filings', including 'the use of AI generative content.'
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Niagara Cnty.): Hon. Michael J. Norris Court Rules (Artificial Intelligence)
Current rule ('As of 6.5.2026'): any attorney or party who uses an AI tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper filed in or submitted to the court or served on another party 'is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.'
-
E.D. Mo. and W.D. Mo.: Judge's Requirements, Section XVIII (Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Joshua M. Divine, E.D. Mo. and W.D. Mo.)
'All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must file a certificate on the docket, together with their notice of appearance, attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be fully checked for accuracy by a human being, using print reporters or traditional legal databases.'
-
North Dakota (statewide): North Dakota Court System: Public Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
'The use of AI tools is not prohibited in matters before the North Dakota courts. However, AI is a tool only. The responsibility for all court filings, arguments, representations, and other work product rests entirely with the attorney or self-represented litigant who submits them.'
-
McLennan County, Texas (District Courts, civil and family cases): McLennan County District Courts Local Rule 1.21 (Use of Technology by Lawyers and Self-Represented Litigants)
A lawyer who uses AI systems 'is cautioned that certain AI systems may produce factually or legally inaccurate content'; 'If a lawyer chooses to employ AI systems in representing a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13, and all other applicable standards of practice and must review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards.'
-
E.D. Wis.: E.D. Wis. Notice to Filers on Artificial Intelligence (Representing Yourself page)
'Filers are advised that documents created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications.'
-
Rules Suggestion 26-CV-21: Adding a Citation-Existence Certification to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale (M.D. Fla.) asked the federal rules committees to add a fifth Rule 11 certification, that 'the legal authorities exist and are accurately cited,' to address generative AI and preempt further judge-by-judge standing orders.
-
Florida (statewide): In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515
Each signer of a document filed with a Florida court represents that 'the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.'
-
M.D. Fla.: Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, M.D. Fla.)
'Any filing that does not contain one of the two permissible certifications below, verbatim, may be stricken. If the filing is a motion, complaint, or petition, then the relief requested may be denied without prejudice.'
-
E.D. Mich. (Bankruptcy): U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Notice Regarding Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence
'Counsel and parties are reminded that they have an independent duty and obligation to verify the accuracy of pleadings and documents prior to the filing with this Court.'
-
Montana Supreme Court Publishes Proposed Rule of Evidence 901(c) on AI-Fabricated Evidence for Comment
The Montana Supreme Court published for comment a proposed Rule of Evidence 901(c) addressing evidence that may have been fabricated by generative AI. Comments closed August 18, 2026; the rule had not been adopted as of September 30, 2026.
-
California: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
The State Bar of California's Practical Guidance covers competence, confidentiality, supervision, billing, and candor obligations when using generative AI. The guidance is non-binding but widely followed. A 2026 revision approved by the Board of Trustees on 2026-05-14 replaces the 2023 version and adds substantial agentic-AI material at the California Supreme Court's request. Separately, proposed amendments to the Comments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 (which under Rule 1.0(c) are not a basis for discipline) have not been adopted; COPRAC revised them after the first comment period and sent them out for a second round that closed 2026-08-06; as of 2026-10-01 the State Bar had published no Board of Trustees action or Supreme Court transmittal on the package. Separately, SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858), signed 2026-09-30 and effective 2027-01-01, adds Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, which requires attorneys using generative AI to take reasonable steps to verify outputs and to disclose that use to the court.
-
Texas (25th and 2nd 25th Judicial Districts): Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (25th and 2nd 25th District Courts of Texas)
Any attorney or self-represented litigant 'that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings', a sworn 'Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence' that lists the generative AI programs used and represents that the pleading 'contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Section 8.F: Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools (Judge Arun Subramanian, S.D.N.Y.)
'Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, the procedural history of the case, and any cited legal authorities.'
-
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas): In re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, Administrative Order No. 3 of 2026 (Westmoreland County, Pa.)
'Attorneys and/or pro se litigants (a party representing himself or herself) shall disclose, in clear and plain factual statement, whether they have used generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other legal paper filed with the Court.'
-
Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 (Machine-Generated Evidence) Withdrawn for Revision
Evidence Rules Committee withdrew proposed FRE 707, which would apply Rule 702 reliability standards to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert (a response to AI), for revision, to be taken up with a deepfake rule at its October 15, 2026 meeting.
-
Collin County, Texas (District Courts): Collin County District Courts Local Rules of Practice, Rule 4.8 (Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Court Filings)
Rule 4.8: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, TensorFlow, OpenAI, Bing) for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, ensure that such information is accurate and correctly portrayed to the court.'
-
Wise County, Texas (District Court and County Courts at Law): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, Wise County District Court and County Courts at Law
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Court and County Courts at Law of Wise County.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, Section H (Use of Artificial Intelligence or Large Language Models) (Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, S.D.N.Y.)
'Counsel is responsible for making complete and accurate representations as to the record, procedural history of the case, and any cited legal authorities.'
-
Texas (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th Judicial Districts: Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence: Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria County District Courts
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of the named counties.'
-
Texas (402nd Judicial District: Wood County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County, Texas)
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Court of Wood County.'
-
Or. Ct. App.: Oregon Court of Appeals: Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI
'The inclusion of fabricated authorities in a court filing is grounds for striking the filing and the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable to the court; attorney fees payable to the opposing party; and/or dismissal of the appeal.'
-
D. Colo.: Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition: Minute Order Denying Constitutional Challenge to D. Colo. AI Standing Order
Judge Wang's Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings is 'applicable to all litigants appearing before this Court'; a plaintiff's pro se status 'does not exempt him from complying with the Standing Order.'
-
Bankr. S.D. W. Va.: Announcement Concerning the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Preparation of Filings (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D. W. Va.)
'It is necessary to remind all litigants, whether unrepresented or represented, that they are subject to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.'
-
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.
-
M.D. Fla.: Standing Order: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W. Berger, M.D. Fla.)
All parties appearing before Judge Berger, 'through counsel or pro se,' must certify at the end of any filing either '(1) That no generative AI was used in the drafting and preparation of the filing; or' (2) that any AI-drafted language was reviewed and its citations checked.
-
Montgomery County, Texas (Probate Court No. 1): Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Probate Court No. 1, Montgomery County, Texas)
Any attorney or self-represented litigant 'that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings', a 'Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence' sworn under penalties of perjury that lists the generative AI programs used and represents that the pleading 'contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations.'
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Amended Standing Case Management Order for Civil Cases in Judge Scott McAfee's Division, Section 7 (Artificial Intelligence) (Fulton County Superior Court)
All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of AI in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court by including a disclosure within the certificate of service.
-
E.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices ¶ 2.C.3: Artificial Intelligence ("AI") Provision (Cases Before Magistrate Judge Lindsay)
'Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, any attorney for a party, or any pro se party, who has used AI in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used.'
-
Texas (284th Judicial District: Montgomery County): Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas)
Any attorney or self-represented litigant 'that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings', a 'Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence' sworn under penalties of perjury that lists the generative AI programs used and represents that the pleading 'contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations.'
-
Texas (457th Judicial District: Montgomery County): Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (457th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas)
Any attorney or self-represented litigant 'that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings', a 'Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence' sworn under penalties of perjury that lists the generative AI programs used and represents that the pleading 'contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations.'
-
Montgomery County, Texas (County Court at Law No. 6): Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (County Court at Law No. 6, Montgomery County, Texas)
Any attorney or self-represented litigant 'that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings', a 'Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence' sworn under penalties of perjury that lists the generative AI programs used and represents that the pleading 'contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations.'
-
S.D. Tex. (Laredo Division): Court Procedures in Civil Cases, Section 8: 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 artificial intelligence (e.g. ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools), is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission.'
-
D. Ariz.: Preliminary Order: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Krissa M. Lanham, D. Ariz.)
'Any party that uses generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI") in connection with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of generative AI and certifying that the filer, in the exercise of the filer's independent judgment, has personally reviewed and verified the content of the filing as accurate and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'
-
M.D. Ga.: Order on Pro Se Obligations and Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Requirements (Senior Judge C. Ashley Royal, M.D. Ga.)
'The Court cautions Plaintiff that these generative AI technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.'
-
New Jersey (statewide): New Jersey Courts Notice to the Bar: Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Related Technologies, Benefits of AI Policies (March 30, 2026)
'The Supreme Court of New Jersey encourages attorneys and law firms to develop, adopt, and periodically update internal policies and practices governing the use of AI and related technologies as part of maintaining professional competence and ethical compliance.'
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Chautauqua Cnty.): Hon. Grace M. Hanlon Courtroom Rules (Disclosing Use of Artificial Intelligence; Amended to Part 161 Reference)
Current rule (part rules 'Updated March 27, 2026'): 'Effective June 1, 2026, please refer to Part 161 (22 NYCRR §§ 161.1 to 161.4 and Appendix A) to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, for guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence.'
-
Tarrant County, Texas (Criminal Courts): Tarrant County Criminal Courts Local Rule 5.33 (Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings)
Rule 5.33(b): 'A party who files a document created with the assistance of A.I. shall ensure the accuracy of all drafted language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analyses created or contributed to by A.I.'
-
N.D. Ohio: Standing Order in Civil Consent Cases, Section 9.1 (Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes Jr., N.D. Ohio)
'Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) when researching and drafting documents may result in "fake" or hallucinated" cases and law, and generate material that is not based on the actual facts of this case.'
-
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.
-
Oklahoma (statewide): In re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, No. SCAD-2026-17, 2026 OK 19
'The Supreme Court does not discourage the use of AI in Oklahoma courts, provided its use complies with legal and ethical standards.'
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order: Use of Generative AI Tools (Cases Assigned to Judge Lin)
'Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities.'
-
S.D. Ind.: Practices and Procedures of Judge Justin R. Olson, Section K: Disclosure and Use of Artificial Intelligence (S.D. Ind.)
'All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to generate, draft, or revise the content of documents submitted to the Court or chambers.'
-
D.C.: District of Columbia Courts Administrative Order: Artificial Intelligence Task Force of the District of Columbia Courts
'ORDERED that the Artificial Intelligence Task Force of the District of Columbia Courts will be a standing Committee of the District of Columbia Courts effective March 6, 2026', with eight listed purposes.
-
KY 17th Judicial Circuit (Campbell County), Family Court Division III: Campbell Family Court, Division III (Kentucky 17th Judicial Circuit), Rule 11: Artificial Intelligence
'Parties shall not file pleadings drafted (partially or in whole) by generative artificial intelligence unless a certification is filed with the Court' containing the statement the rule prescribes.
-
Utah Rule of Evidence 707 (Machine-Generated Evidence) Takes Effect
Utah adopted Rule of Evidence 707, applying Rule 702-style reliability requirements to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert witness. It took effect March 6, 2026, when the Legislature approved H.J.R. 26 by a two-thirds vote.
-
D. Colo.: Pretrial and Trial Procedures, Civil Cases, Section IV.B: Certification Regarding the Use of Generative AI (Judge John L. Kane, D. Colo.)
Every filing prepared 'in whole or in part' using GenAI ('such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.') must include a certification by the preparer 'identifying the portion of the filing that was prepared with the use of GenAI.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules for Civil Cases, Section II.N, and Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, Section V (Artificial Intelligence) (Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo, S.D.N.Y.)
'If any attorney or pro se litigant uses an artificial intelligence tool in preparing any filing, the filing must include a signed certification (i) explaining how the tool was used, (ii) stating whether the attorney or litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy of cited legal authorities and factual assertions, and (iii) if so, describing in detail the steps taken to verify the accuracy of all legal authorities and factual assertions generated by the tool.'
-
Wisconsin Rule Petition 26-02 Proposes an SCR Chapter on Generative AI in Court Proceedings
A petition asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to create SCR Chapter 76, requiring lawyers to verify generative AI content before filing and to disclose the tool used. The petitioner asked to withdraw it on September 28, 2026; no court action on the request was located.
-
Okla. Ct. Crim. App.: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 1.17: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2026 OK CR 7)
'When generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI") has been used in the drafting of any document for filing in this Court, the party, or their counsel, shall ensure that any portion of the document produced or modified by generative AI, whether in whole or in part, has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document.'
-
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.
-
E.D. Mo.: Requirements, Paragraph 2 (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Joseph S. Dueker, E.D. Mo.)
'By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper', whether 'by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it', 'self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).'
-
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 utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, shall incorporate and certify using the form hereinbelow as a certificate within each pleading generated utilizing 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 citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification that the signing attorney (or self-represented party) has personally verified the content's accuracy.
-
N.D. Ohio: Order on the Use of Generative AI and Shadow Counsel (Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg, N.D. Ohio)
'[N]o attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.'
-
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.'
-
FL 17th Circuit (Broward): Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward) Administrative Order AO 2026-03-Gen: Use of AI in Court Filings
As issued, disclosure on the face of any filing containing AI-generated content, identification of the specific AI tool used, and a certification that the filer had personally reviewed and verified the content's accuracy. Amendment 2 (May 19, 2026) limited disclosure to generative AI, dropped tool identification, and exempted routine research and cite-checking.
-
WI Waukesha County: Waukesha County Standing Order 26-SO-03 (67): Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Family Division Filings
An attorney, party, or pro se litigant submitting a Family Division filing prepared using AI must 'first independently review the document and the citations contained therein to confirm the accuracy, legitimacy, and use of good applicable law.'
-
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.
-
M.D. Ga.: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Guidance for Pro Se Litigants)
'Pro se parties are strongly encouraged to be cautious when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT.'
-
KY 5th Judicial Circuit (Crittenden, Union and Webster Counties), Family Court: Kentucky 5th Judicial Circuit Family Court (Crittenden, Union, and Webster Counties), Local Rule 203(E): AI Certification
'All pleadings, motions, and documentation which include any material generated by artificial intelligence (AI) shall also include the following certification language within the document,' quoted below.
-
Lubbock County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Standing Order Regarding Children, Property, and Conduct of the Parties, Section 9 (Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at Law)
Section 9.1, 'Liability': 'All attorneys and self-represented litigants are responsible for the accuracy of their filings. Reliance on AI-generated information that results in the submission of fabricated, misleading, or non-existent citations or facts may result in sanctions under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent power of this Court.'
-
Va. Cir. Ct. (Richmond): Local Rule on Artificial Intelligence (Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia)
'The use of artificial intelligence ("AI") tools is not prohibited in this Court.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules: Generative AI Declaration (Civil § 1.f, Criminal § 1.e, Civil Pro Se § 8; 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.
-
E.D. Okla.: Candor, Accuracy, and Responsibility in Court Filings (Hon. Jason A. Robertson, E.D. Okla.)
'A reasonable inquiry requires human verification of cited authority. Reliance on automated or technological output alone is insufficient.'
-
C.D. Cal.: Judge's Procedures: Artificial Intelligence Certificate (Judge Otis D. Wright II, C.D. Cal.)
'Any memorandum of points and authorities, pretrial brief, trial brief, or posttrial brief must include on the last page of the document a certificate by the attorney or the unrepresented party filing the document that the document complies with the following rule governing use of generative artificial intelligence.'
-
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.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, Section 1.f (Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, S.D.N.Y.)
'Any attorney using Generative Artificial Intelligence ("GAI") in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule, including all applicable ethical rules.'
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, Section d (Generative AI) (Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke, S.D.N.Y.)
'Non-attorney pro se litigants are not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence ("GAI") in filings or documents related to their cases.'
-
Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149) Takes Effect
HB 149, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, signed June 22, 2025, took effect January 1, 2026. It regulates the use of artificial intelligence systems in Texas and provides civil penalties.
2025 (83)
-
MO 46th Judicial Circuit (Taney County): Missouri 46th Judicial Circuit (Taney County), Local Rules 3.3 (Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use) and 3.4 (Notice of Use of AI by Court Reporters)
Rule 3.3: '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.'
-
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).
-
Denton County, Texas (Probate Courts): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, Denton County Probate Courts (SO-2025-00002)
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the Probate Courts of Denton County.'
-
Arkansas (statewide): In re Adoption of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25. Artificial Intelligence, 2025 Ark. 220 (per curiam)
Section 1 (Awareness): 'Everyone participating in the court system must be mindful of the following when entering client or court data into any electronic system that generates responses or uses generative artificial intelligence (GAI)'.
-
D.D.C.: General Order for Civil Cases, Paragraph 15: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Reggie B. Walton, D.D.C.)
'Although the use of generative artificial intelligence tools', including ChatGPT or Google Bard, 'is not prohibited, counsel are expected to comply with all legal and ethical obligations in the drafting and submission of documents to the Court.'
-
PA (statewide judicial branch): Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Ethics guidance for judicial officers, not a filing rule: it applies the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges to judges' use of generative AI under the Supreme Court's Interim Policy (ordered September 9, 2025, effective December 8, 2025).
-
Cabarrus County, NC: Superior Court of Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) Revised Administrative Order 25-09
Applies to all civil and criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County); replaces and supersedes the order entered July 23, 2024.
-
KY 56th Judicial Circuit (Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon and Trigg Counties): Kentucky 56th Judicial Circuit (Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon, and Trigg Counties), Local Rule 12: Artificial Intelligence
Lawyers and pro se litigants who use generative AI services 'to prepare documents that the parties file in the record in this case are cautioned that generative AI technologies sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.'
-
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.
-
Madison County, Ill.: Standing Order of Circuit Judge Patrick G. King on Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Civil Cases
Filings: the use of ChatGPT or any other research tool 'is not prohibited', but counsel and self-represented litigants 'must personally and respectively confirm the accuracy of any content generated by these tools' and 'make all diligent efforts to ensure that any filings prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence is genuinely and thoroughly reviewed for factual, ethical, and legal accuracy prior to submission'. The Court 'will not accept the excuse that such content was prepared by AI, staff, or others' under Ill. S. Ct. R. 137.
-
Virginia: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Virginia has informal VSB guidance on generative AI (posted by early 2024 and since updated) plus Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 on fees, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia in November 2025. LEO 1901 holds that non-hourly fees need not be reduced solely because AI made the work faster, rejecting contrary views; the proposed version named ABA Formal Opinion 512 and North Carolina 2024 FEO 1 as reaching a different conclusion. A second AI opinion, proposed LEO 1902 on a lawyer's duties when opposing counsel files uncorrected AI output, went out for comment in May 2026.
-
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. In July 2026 the WSBA Board of Governors agreed to co-propose, with the Washington Supreme Court Clerk, AI comments to RPC 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8; the Court has not yet published them for comment. No binding court rule or statewide AI disclosure requirement exists, though in LeDoux v. Outliers the Western District of Washington personally sanctioned a plaintiff's attorney $3,000 in July 2026 over AI-generated false citations. New legislation (HB 2225, effective Jan 1 2027) creates consumer protection liability for law firms using AI chatbots without adequate disclosure.
-
Montgomery County, Ohio (Court of Common Pleas, General Division): Montgomery County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas, General Division, Local Rule 12.08: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
If an attorney or self-represented litigant uses GenAI in preparing materials submitted to the Court, 'such use shall be disclosed to the Court' at the time of submission, with 'a general description of the GenAI used and its role in the preparation of the materials.'
-
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.
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Leftridge's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of AI in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court. If AI was used in any way, they must sign and file a 'Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence' at the end of the document, before the signature block.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Use of Generative AI Rule (Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, S.D.N.Y.)
'Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes a duty on attorneys and pro se litigants to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact and that they have verified all cited sources for accuracy.'
-
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 artificial intelligence (AI) to alter an individual's appearance or voice are prohibited during remote Zoom appearances and Zoom settlement conferences.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Section VII, and in Pro Se Cases, Section VI (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Analisa Torres, S.D.N.Y.)
'Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, all parties and counsel are reminded of their obligation to provide the Court with accurate and complete representations in any pleading, written motion, or other paper submitted to the Court.'
-
DeKalb Cnty. State Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order on Use of Artificial Intelligence in All Civil and Criminal Cases Before DeKalb State Court, Division 3 (Judge Yolanda R. Mack)
Governs 'the use of artificial intelligence ("AI") tools in the preparation of all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in this Court's criminal and civil dockets, and it applies to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).'
-
E.D.N.Y.: Individual Practice Rules ¶ I.B.4: AI Caution (Cases Before Magistrate Judge Dunst)
'The parties are cautioned to ensure that any use of Artificial Intelligence resources in connection with their submissions to the Court still comply with their professional obligations to the Court.'
-
E.D. Tex.: E.D. Tex. General Order 25-07, Amending Local Rules CV-11(g) and AT-3(m): Generative AI
All litigants are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative AI.
-
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 § 4.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.
Show 58 more from 2025
-
S.D. Ohio: Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge James L. Graham, S.D. Ohio)
'[A]ny party, including a pro se litigant, who uses generative AI to help generate the content of any portion of a pleading, motion, brief, or other document must submit a declaration disclosing the use of generative AI.'
-
Denton County, Texas (District Courts): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, Denton County District Courts
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of Denton County.'
-
DeKalb Cnty. State Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order on Use of Artificial Intelligence in All Civil and Criminal Cases Before DeKalb State Court, Division 6 (Judge Ana María Martinez)
Governs 'the use of artificial intelligence ("AI") tools in the preparation of all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in this Court's criminal and civil dockets, and it applies to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).'
-
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.
-
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas): In re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, Administrative Order, Docket No. CI-25-07564 (Lancaster County, Pa.)
'[A]ttorneys and/or pro se litigants (a party representing himself or herself) shall disclose, in clear and plain factual statement, any use of generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court.'
-
Vermont (statewide): Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Directive No. 38, Policy on Artificial Intelligence (as amended Oct. 6, 2025)
'All court users, including self-represented litigants, are expected to review and confirm the accuracy of AI output and related information provided to the Judiciary or used in connection with a court proceeding.'
-
D. Minn.: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota: Gen-AI FAQ
'The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.' Litigants 'should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.'
-
Idaho OAH: Policy 25-1: Guidelines for Administrative Law Judges Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings)
Applies to OAH Administrative Law Judges, independent contract hearing officers, and 'anyone in roles supporting OAH's ALJs and ICHOs, including deputy clerks and legal assistants.' It imposes no duty on parties or counsel.
-
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-Assisted Research
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.
-
FTC ALJ: Generative AI Certification in the Certificate of Service (Federal Trade Commission, ALJ Jay L. Himes)
The certificate of service for each filing must further certify either (i) that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini), or (ii) that any language in the filing drafted by generative AI was checked for accuracy by human attorneys or paralegals using printed legal reporters or online legal databases.
-
Colorado SB 25B-004 Delays the Colorado AI Act to June 30, 2026
In a 2025 special session, Colorado enacted SB 25B-004, signed August 28, 2025, extending the effective date of the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) requirements from February 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026. SB 26-189, signed May 14, 2026, later repealed and reenacted those provisions.
-
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.
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Case Management Order for Civil Cases in Judge Belinda E. Edwards' Division, Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom (Fulton County Superior Court)
'All parties should note whether artificial intelligence (AI) was used to prepare or draft a filing in this Court at the end of each filing.'
-
S.D. Ohio: Standing Order Governing the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins, S.D. Ohio)
'[A]ny party, including any self-represented litigant, who uses generative AI to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of generative AI.'
-
N.D. Cal.: Civility and Professionalism Standing Order Section VII: Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Thompson)
'Use of ChatGPT or other such AI tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.'
-
Liberty County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Liberty County Local Rule 3.6 (Use of Artificial Intelligence) (District Courts and County Courts at Law of Liberty County, Texas)
Rule 3.6: 'Attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper drafted using generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, generative AI services) and/or sources researched by artificial intelligence (e.g., Google AI or Copilot) without checking the submission for accuracy because certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the author's independent legal judgment.'
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section E.4: Technological Assistance, Including AI (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cisneros)
AI use is not categorically prohibited.
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Case Management Order for Civil Cases in Judge Thomas A. Cox, Jr.'s Division, Section XI (Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom) (Fulton County Superior Court)
Any attorney or pro se litigant who uses AI in any capacity to prepare or draft any filing 'SHALL be aware that if, on review, this Court finds the use of hallucination or fictitious citations to either statute or case law the Court will take appropriate action including but not limited to the striking of pleadings, sanctions, or disciplinary referrals.'
-
EOIR (all adjudicatory components, particularly the 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.
-
Hays County, Texas (County Courts at Law): Hays County Courts at Law Local Rule 1.07 (Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence)
Rule 1.07: 'All attorneys and self-represented litigants who utilize any form of artificial intelligence (AI) for legal research or drafting in connection with any Case before the Courts shall, before filing or presenting to a Court any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, certify in writing that the attorney or self-represented litigant verified all information that generative artificial intelligence created or contributed, including all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis, is accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources.'
-
Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs and Proposed Orders in Judge Benton's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
Applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Benton's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).
-
Cal. (statewide): California Rules of Court, Rule 10.430 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies)
Any superior court, Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court that does not prohibit the use of generative AI by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025, covering court staff's use for any purpose and judicial officers' use for any task outside their adjudicative role.
-
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.
-
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 to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Latella must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.
-
KS 10th Judicial District (Johnson County): Johnson County District Court Local Civil Rule 3.7: Generative Artificial Intelligence Certification
'Effective upon the adoption of this Rule, all litigants and/or their counsel shall include and complete the following alternative certifications, which shall be placed immediately prior to the signature block for the filing party.'
-
N.D. Ohio: Standing Order, Paragraph 8 (Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Charles E. Fleming, N.D. Ohio)
'[N]o attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.'
-
N.D. Ala.: Initial Order, Part I.F (Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Annemarie Carney Axon, N.D. Ala.)
All counsel and pro se parties 'must disclose the use of artificial intelligence' in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court.
-
N.D. Tex.: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, N.D. Tex.)
'While the Court will not impose obligations as to litigants' using AI beyond those that Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires, all parties are cautioned that relying on AI without verifying the accuracy of the information it generates', like any other shoddy research method, 'implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'
-
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.
-
Alaska: Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law
Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (approved by the Ethics Committee April 3, 2025; adopted by the Board of Governors April 23, 2025) addresses competence, confidentiality, billing, supervision, and court-disclosure questions for lawyers using generative AI. Before inputting client confidences, a lawyer must review the tool's data policies, and must anonymize inputs to a self-learning tool outside a closed system unless the client gives informed consent. The opinion is advisory. No Alaska court rule or D. Alaska order addresses AI in filings.
-
E.D. Va.: Scheduling Order: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr., E.D. Va.)
'The parties are instructed that, should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.'
-
E.D. Tex.: Standing Order on Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge John D. Love, E.D. Tex.)
Any party, 'whether appearing pro se or through counsel, must include with all filings a Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage' disclosing: (1) that generative AI 'was used (or not used)'; (2) 'the specific tool the party used'; (3) 'how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document'; and (4) '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.'
-
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.
-
N.D. Ga.: Guidelines to Parties and Counsel in Civil Cases, Section 3.A (Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson, N.D. Ga.)
'Counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to prepare documents filed and 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 in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding sign and submit the attached form.'
-
Orange County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Orange County Local Rule 13 (Artificial Intelligence) (128th, 163rd and 260th District Courts and County Courts at Law, Orange County, Texas)
Rule 13: if a lawyer believes the client is best served by the use of technology '(e.g., Chat GPT, Google Bard, Copilot, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services), then the lawyer is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer's most important asset', the exercise of independent legal judgment.
-
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.
-
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.'
-
E.D. Va.: Pretrial Schedule A (Judge Payne), Section E: Use of Artificial Intelligence (E.D. Va.)
'All attorneys and pro se filers must file a certification with any brief or memorandum submitted to the Court' stating two things.
-
S.D.N.Y.: Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, Section C (ChatGPT) (Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, S.D.N.Y.)
'The Court is aware that some pro se litigants will use ChatGPT to assist them with court filings.'
-
Bastrop County, Texas (District Courts): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (21st, 335th, 423rd and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County, Texas)
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed cases' in the 21st, 335th, 423rd and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County.
-
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). OSB Formal Opinion 2026-208 (February 2026) addresses chatbots and AI agents used for marketing and client intake. Proposed amendments to ORAP 1.40 and 13.25, finalized by the ORAP Committee in August 2026 and awaiting adoption by the appellate courts, would make the signer of an appellate filing certify that it contains no fabricated authority and set a $500 minimum monetary sanction for each fabricated reference; any amendments the courts adopt take effect January 1, 2027.
-
Texas: Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705
Texas has formal Ethics Opinion 705 (Feb 2025), a State Bar task force report, and a layered federal-court framework. Two federal districts have district-wide AI local rules, N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) (disclosure) and E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(g) (verification); S.D. Tex. has a court-wide general order, and individual judges in N.D., E.D., and W.D. Tex. require AI certificates. Counsel was sanctioned in October 2025 under N.D. Tex. Rule 7.2(f) for undisclosed AI use. The Supreme Court of Texas has proposed amending TRCP 13 to make a signature a representation that citations are not fabricated (Misc. Docket No. 26-9054; no final order yet).
-
M.D. Pa.: Standing Order on Use of Generative AI (Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo, M.D. Pa.)
Current text: 'All parties and counsel are cautioned to verify any facts or legal citations prepared through generative AI, and to safeguard against the disclosure of confidential information.'
-
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.
-
D. Conn.: Chambers Preferences, Policy on AI Research (Judge Vernon D. Oliver, D. Conn.)
'[A]ttorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court.'
-
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.'
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Erie Cnty.): IAS Part Rules of Justice Peter Allen Weinmann: Generative AI Disclosure and Certification (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie County)
Should counsel or the parties 'use any AI resources or material (e.g. ChatGPT), they must adhere to the following 3 conditions: (1) They must disclose and /or certify that any use identifies the AI program;(2) They must identify the portion of the filing drafted by AI; and (3) They must certify that the AI work product was reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability.'
-
N.Y. Surr. Ct. (Saratoga Cnty.): Local Court Rules of the Honorable Jonathan G. Schopf, Surrogate, Rule 2.7: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Saratoga County Surrogate's Court)
'Attorneys, witnesses, and/or parties must disclose the use of A.I.-assisted technology, whether generative or A.I. assisted, in the creation or editing of any document or material submitted as evidence to the court.'
2024 (68)
-
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 in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding sign and submit the attached form.'
-
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's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 addresses competence, vendor vetting, billing, supervision, and an informed-consent rule that distinguishes substantive AI delegation from routine research. On the court side, the W.D.N.C. treats every filing as a deemed certification that its facts, law, citations, and quotations are accurate (a July 2026 order that replaced the 2024 AI certificate), and Cabarrus County Superior Court requires disclosure of AI-generated or AI-altered evidence.
-
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 to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Mehalchick must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.
-
Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Local Administrative Rule 1.06(b) (District Courts and County Courts at Law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, Texas)
Local Administrative Rule 1.06(b): 'All pleadings and motions filed by counsel and self-represented parties shall comply with the "Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence," and contain the "Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence". (see appendices A and B)'
-
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 publicly available to Californians to post documentation describing their training data. Posting was due on or before January 1, 2026, and before each later release or substantial modification.
-
New Mexico: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
The State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee's Formal Opinion 2024-004 (September 2024) permits generative AI use subject to conditions on confidentiality, verification, conflicts, billing, supervision, and client communication; it is advisory. In federal court, Judge Margaret I. Strickland requires AI disclosure and accuracy certification in her cases, and the Chief Judge issued a district-wide AI bulletin. The New Mexico judiciary has circulated interim AI guidelines for legal professionals, and the Supreme Court of New Mexico has sanctioned AI-related misconduct in State v. Sandoval (September 2026).
-
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. Providers of generative AI systems with over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users, publicly accessible in California, must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed latent disclosures in AI image, video, and audio. Operative August 2, 2026 (AB 853).
-
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.
-
Butler County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas): In re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, MsD No. 2024-40258 (Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Pa.)
'Attorneys and/or pro se litigants (a party representing himself or herself) shall disclose any use of generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other pleading and/or filing submitted to the court.'
-
E.D. Pa.: Initial Procedural Order, Section 8: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., E.D. Pa.)
Any party, 'whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before the Undersigned, must include with the documents a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify: (a) The specific AI tool that was used; (b) The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and, (c) That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.'
-
E.D. Pa.: Practices and Procedures, Section D: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge José Raúl Arteaga, E.D. Pa.)
Applies to 'any attorney for a party or any pro se party who uses generative artificial intelligence ("A.I.") to prepare any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court in a matter assigned to Judge Arteaga.'
-
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.'
-
Falls and Robertson Counties, Texas (82nd Judicial District Court): Amendment to the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the 82nd District Court, Section VII (Artificial Intelligence) (Falls and Robertson Counties, Texas)
Section VII, 'Artificial Intelligence': 'The use of artificial intelligence, in any form, is prohibited in the 82nd Judicial District without a prior order of the Court granting and authorizing the use of such devices.'
-
Hays County, Texas (District Courts): Hays County District Courts Local Rule 1.6 (Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence)
Rule 1.6: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with any civil or criminal case shall before filing or presenting to a court any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding certify in writing that:'
-
N.D. Cal.: Standing Order for Civil Cases, Section VIII.H (Use of Generative AI Tools) (Hon. Eumi K. Lee, N.D. Cal.)
Use of generative artificial intelligence 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 several overlapping AI guidance sources. Three NYC Bar formal opinions (2024-5 on generative AI, 2025-6 on AI recording of client calls, 2026-2 on AI recording of non-client calls) and the NYSBA Task Force Report (April 2024) set out advisory standards, and 22 NYCRR Part 161 (in force since June 1, 2026) sets the court-system policy. Part 161 states that attorneys and parties should not be required to disclose AI use, and it authorizes individual courts to adopt a Model Rule (Appendix A) under which a lawyer who used AI must review the paper for fabricated content and signing certifies that review; that duty applies court by court, not statewide. S2698, which would require an AI-disclosure affidavit with civil filings, is in the Senate Rules Committee.
-
Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (394th Judicial District)
As amended August 1, 2024: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding sign and submit the attached form.'
-
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.
Show 43 more from 2024
-
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.'
-
Gray County, Texas (County Court): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Gray County Court, Texas)
Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the Gray County Court.'
-
Hudspeth County, Texas (County Court): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Hudspeth County Court, Texas)
'This Standing Order of the Hudspeth County Court applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in Hudspeth County.'
-
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.
-
Collin County, Texas (County Courts at Law): Standing Order No. 3: Use of Artificial Intelligence for any Court Filing (Collin County Courts at Law)
'If any attorney for a party, or a self-represented party, has used AI in any way for the preparation of any filed document with the Court, the party MUST, in a clear and concise factual statement, disclose that AI was used in the preparation of the filing and CERTIFY that each and every citation to the law, or the record in the filed document, has been verified and is accurate.'
-
W.D.N.C.: W.D.N.C. Standing Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence
Every brief or memorandum had to 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.
-
West Virginia: L.E.O. 24-01: Artificial Intelligence
West Virginia's L.E.O. 24-01 (June 2024) addresses competence, diligence, communication, confidentiality, supervision, and billing for lawyers using generative AI, and states that client consent to generative AI use 'must be informed and should be confirmed in writing.' JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (October 2023) permits judges to use AI for research but never to decide a case. An announcement of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reminds all litigants of Rule 9011 and states that they must verify cited cases and quotations, and the Northern District restricts AI use with criminal discovery.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice): Fifth Circuit Court Decision on Proposed Amendment to 5th Cir. R. 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 memorandum opinion (November 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 (Court of Common Pleas, General Division, including Commercial Docket): Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas Local Rule 49: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions
Rule 49(B) defines AI as 'Any technology that uses machine learning, natural language processing, or any other computational mechanism to simulate human intelligence, including document generation, evidence creation or analysis, and legal research.'
-
Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) Signed; Repealed and Reenacted by SB 26-189 Before Taking Effect
Governor Polis signed SB 24-205, creating duties for developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. Its requirements never took effect: SB 25B-004 delayed them to June 30, 2026, and SB 26-189 repealed and reenacted the law before that date.
-
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).
-
C.D. Cal.: Judge's Procedures, Item 14: Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver, C.D. Cal.)
'Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated contact [sic] is accurate and complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations.'
-
Williamson County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law): Williamson County District Courts and County Courts at Law Local Rule I.J (Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Court Filings)
Local Rule I.J: 'all self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, ensure that such information is accurate and correctly portrayed to the court, and shall sign and submit the Certificate Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Exhibit A) and attach it to any filing where AI-generated information is used.'
-
Missouri: Lawyer's Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Missouri's AI ethics guidance consists of two nonbinding informal opinions from the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel, Informal Opinion 2024-11 (April 2024, general AI use) and Informal Opinion 2026-09 (August 2026, AI deposition software, which requires informed client consent before confidential information is input). The Advisory Committee has issued no formal opinion on AI. The Missouri Court of Appeals has addressed fabricated citations in Kruse v. Karlen (2024), Boatner v. Hickerson (2026), and State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson (2026). The 7th and 46th Judicial Circuits require AI disclosure in filings, and in federal court Judge Joshua M. Divine requires an AI certification with each notice of appearance.
-
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 to the Court had to be indicated in the caption on the motion, brief or other filing with the Court (text effective April 5, 2024).
-
N.D. Ill.: Case Management Procedures, AI Provision (Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, N.D. Ill.)
Any party using AI in connection with a filing must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and 26(g).
-
District of Columbia: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters
DC has a formal ethics opinion on generative AI (Opinion 388, April 2024) and D.C. Court of Appeals rule amendments (Order M284-24, filed April 7, 2025, effective May 6, 2025) that add technology to the Rule 1.1 competence comment and extend confidentiality and supervision duties to outside service providers. In September 2026 the D.C. Court of Appeals struck a brief containing fabricated citations in Douglas v. Deutsche Bank. Neither the D.D.C. nor the D.C. Circuit has a court-wide AI rule, though Judge Walton's general order for civil cases addresses generative AI.
-
Texas (89th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (89th Judicial District)
As issued: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the form hereinbelow as an attachment to each pleading generated utilizing artificial intelligence.'
-
Texas (30th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (30th District)
As issued: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the form hereinbelow as an attachment to each pleading generated utilizing artificial intelligence.'
-
Texas (78th Judicial District: Wichita County): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (78th District)
As issued: 'All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the form hereinbelow as an attachment to each pleading generated utilizing artificial intelligence.'
-
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).
-
Kentucky: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the Practice of Law
Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024), formally adopted by the Board of Governors and advisory under SCR 3.530, states that not using an available AI tool "may constitute a failure to meet the lawyer's duty of attaining and maintaining competence." It describes itself as practical guidance while the KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence continues its work. Kentucky has no statewide AI rule for court filings; three circuit local rules address AI, and two family-court rules require an AI certification.
-
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.
-
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 and that the party has verified the existence and accuracy of any authority cited.
-
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.
-
S.D. Tex. (Brownsville Division): Judge Rolando Olvera, Local Rules (Civil), Section 8.C: Mandatory Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (S.D. Tex.)
'All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their proposed scheduling order, file a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a person.'
-
N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Erie Cnty.): Hon. Emilio Colaiacovo Part Rules, The Use of Generative AI (Dropped from the 2025 Part Rules)
'While the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) is not prohibited, should counsel or the parties use any GAI resources or material (e.g. ChatGPT), they must disclose and/or certify that any use (1) identifies the GAI program; (2) identifies the portion of the filing drafted by GAI; and (3) certifies that the GAI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability.'
-
Park v. Kim
The Second Circuit referred counsel to its Grievance Panel under Local Rule 46.2 for further investigation and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. It ordered her to provide a copy of the ruling to her client, "translated into Korean if necessary to permit Park to understand it," within twenty-one days, and to file a certification on the docket attesting that she had done so (slip op. at 11-12). On the merits, the court affirmed the dismissal of Park's suit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b) ("Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal," id. at 1).
-
E.D. Va.: Scheduling Order: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Judge David J. Novak, E.D. Va.)
'Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.'
-
Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.): Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (Hon. Kimberly A. Knill)
'Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel or the self-represented party must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel or the self-represented party alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.'
-
New Jersey (statewide): New Jersey Supreme Court Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers
Because AI can generate false information, a lawyer has an ethical duty to check and verify all information generated by AI to ensure that it is accurate; failure to do so may violate RPC 3.1, 4.1(a)(1), and 8.4(c).
-
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.
-
Florida: Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 2024), which the Florida Bar describes as the first state ethics opinion on AI, requires lawyers to inform clients, preferably in writing, before charging the actual cost of generative AI, to develop policies and practices to verify that AI use is consistent with their ethical obligations, and to protect client confidentiality. Since June 15, 2026, amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) makes every signer represent that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, and AOSC26-12 bars Florida courts from imposing AI disclosure requirements.
-
E.D. Va.: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Judge Roderick C. Young, E.D. Va.)
'Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.'
-
Texas (Bexar County, Civil District Courts only): Bexar County Civil District Courts Local Rule 4(O)(1): A.I. Certification (Presiding Civil District Court)
A policy the Presiding Judge 'will adhere to' on the Presiding Civil District Court's nonjury docket: '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 counsel or self-represented litigant', attesting to two things.
-
E.D. Mo.: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Artificial Intelligence (Court Notice)
'By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper', whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, 'self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).'
2023 (24)
-
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.
-
E.D. Va.: Pretrial Schedule A (Judge Hudson), Section I.C: Use of Artificial Intelligence (E.D. Va.)
'Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.'
-
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 is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations in any submission (including filings, demonstratives, evidence, or oral argument), consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance.'
-
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.'
-
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.
-
D.N.J.: General Pretrial and Trial Procedures, Section I.B (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Evelyn Padin, D.N.J.)
A 'mandatory disclosure/certification that: (1) identifies the GAI program; (2) identifies the portion of the filing drafted by GAI; and (3) certifies that the GAI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability' whenever generative AI was used in court filings (the text of the procedures revised August 31, 2023 through April 9, 2026). The sanctions sentence appears in the April 9, 2026 revision and not in the 2023 revisions.
-
Ill. (Human Rights Commission): Standing Order for All Cases Filed Before the ALS, AI Provision (Chief ALJ Brian Weinthal, IL HRC)
'A party to an ALS case is not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence ("AI") to compose legal pleadings.' (standing order version 08/01/2025, for cases filed on or after August 1, 2025)
-
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.; judge retired May 6, 2025)
Any party using AI in the preparation of materials submitted to the court had to 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.
-
N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section VII.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.
-
D. Mont.: Pro Hac Vice Admission Condition: Generative AI Drafting Programs Prohibited (Judge Donald W. Molloy, D. Mont.)
Pro hac vice admission is granted 'on the condition that pro hac counsel shall do his or her own work. This means that pro hac counsel must do his or her own writing; sign his or her own pleadings, motions, and briefs; and appear and participate personally.'
-
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.
-
N.D. Ill.: Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Fuentes: Artificial Intelligence (N.D. Ill.)
Current (March 3, 2026): the appendix, which 'is not a part of the Standing Order', refers all counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court's policy on artificial intelligence and states that the Court 'expects that no counsel will submit hallucinated authorities, and that all counsel will follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'
-
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, were 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, disciplinary and administrative matters addressing AI use in legal proceedings, from sanctions and warnings to procedural orders.
- Data exports: CSV, JSON, and RSS feeds for the trackers behind this timeline.