In re Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals (Rule 1.17)
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals · Okla. Ct. Crim. App. · Oklahoma bar guidance
Conduct
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals adopts Rule 1.17 governing generative AI use in court filings, effective February 18, 2026.
Consequence
Verification-by-responsible-person obligation; sanctions for noncompliance include waiver, striking, and contempt.
Lesson
Oklahoma joins the growing list of state courts of last resort with explicit AI verification rules backed by appellate consequences.
Verified May 11, 2026
- Citation
- In re Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Ct. of Crim. App. (Rule 1.17), 2026 OK CR 7, No. CCAD-2026-1 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2026)
- Decided
- February 18, 2026
Summary
This entry exists in the Ropes and Gray AI Court Order Tracker as an Oklahoma case dated February 18, 2026 with Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin attributed. The underlying document is not a case order; it is the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' order adopting new procedural Rule 1.17, governing the use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting documents filed in that court. The order is cited as 2026 OK CR 7, court file CCAD-2026-1, decided February 18, 2026, signed by all five sitting judges (Lumpkin P.J., Musseman V.P.J., Lewis, Hudson, and Rowland JJ.). Rule 1.17 requires that when generative AI has been used in drafting any document for filing in the 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." The rule defines generative AI as "any type of artificial intelligence that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user." Sanctions for noncompliance include waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of a non-compliant document from the record, and a finding of contempt. Presiding Judge Lumpkin filed a special concurrence emphasizing that a lawyer signing a document already certifies the accuracy of citations, quotations, and authority, and that AI use does not change that baseline obligation.
- AI tool:
- Generative artificial intelligence (defined by the rule as any type of artificial intelligence that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user)
What sanction did the court impose?
Rule 1.17 is in force in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals effective February 18, 2026 (the date of the adopting order). Sanctions authority for noncompliance includes waiver of issues on appeal, striking of non-compliant documents, and contempt.
Why does In re Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals (Rule 1.17) matter for law firms using AI?
This entry covers a court-rule adoption, not a sanctions case. The Ropes and Gray AI Court Order Tracker categorizes it as a case dated February 18, 2026, with Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin attributed. The underlying document is 2026 OK CR 7, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ order adopting new procedural Rule 1.17. All five sitting judges signed it (Lumpkin P.J., Musseman V.P.J., Lewis, Hudson, and Rowland JJ.). Lumpkin filed a special concurrence. His point: an attorney’s existing duty to certify citation accuracy by signature already covers AI-assisted work, so Rule 1.17 restates an existing standard rather than creating a new compliance regime.
Rule 1.17’s substance is the durable artifact. When generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the 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.” Generative AI is defined broadly as “any type of artificial intelligence that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user.” Sanctions for noncompliance include waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of a non-compliant document from the record, and a finding of contempt.
Three points warrant attention for Oklahoma criminal appellate practitioners. First, scope reaches any document for filing, not only briefs, and any portion produced or modified by AI, in whole or in part. Compliance obligations are granular. Second, issue waiver is distinctive among AI court orders nationally. Its enforcement could prove case-dispositive in a way that monetary sanctions are not. Third, Lumpkin’s concurrence ties AI verification to the existing professional conduct duty implied by an attorney’s signature. Firms operating in Oklahoma should treat Rule 1.17 as an extension of Rule 11 logic to the appellate context rather than a separate disclosure regime. Mata v. Avianca is cited as foundational authority, signaling Oklahoma’s continuity with the national line of AI-citation cases that begins there.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Criminal appellate practitioners in Oklahoma must implement a verification-by-responsible-person workflow for any AI-touched filing in the Court of Criminal Appeals; the rule applies to any portion produced or modified by AI.
- The rule's definition is technology-broad: any AI that generates content from a prompt is in scope. Citation-checking, brief summarization, and AI-assisted research tools all trigger verification.
- The sanction of waiver of the affected issue on appeal is distinctive. Unlike monetary or contempt sanctions, an issue-waiver sanction is potentially case-dispositive and reaches client outcomes directly.
- Lumpkin's concurrence frames AI verification as a restatement of the existing signature obligation under Oklahoma's professional conduct rules, not a new standard. Firms should align internal AI-use policies with that framing rather than treating Rule 1.17 as a separate compliance overlay.