Federal and State Court Orders on AI
Federal and state courts regulate AI in filings through standing orders, local rules, and guidance. This tracker covers 228 instruments currently in force, each linked to the court's primary source: 182 bind attorney filings (a disclosure, verification, or use restriction, or a rule that makes the filer answerable for accuracy), and 46 are advisory or apply only to court personnel or parties. Use the "Binding on attorneys" filter to see only operative obligations. Listed separately at the end: 3 adopted or proposed rules not yet in force and 20 rescinded, superseded, or lapsed orders kept for the record.
Requirements vary significantly by judge and jurisdiction. Some courts require disclosure, or verification of AI-generated content with or without a certification; others impose a Rule 11 caution; a few prohibit AI use in filings entirely. Check before filing in any unfamiliar court.
For the chronological view across all three trackers and federal AI guidance, see the AI legal regulation timeline.
+3 nationwide orders bind attorney filings in every state and don't show on the map (Generative AI Certification in the Certificate of Service (Federal Trade Commission, ALJ Jay L. Himes) , Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Kelly) , Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Restani) ).
About the map
The map highlights the strictest attorney-facing instrument in force in each state. Red marks a use restriction and amber a disclosure or verification duty, both binding. Green marks instruments with no AI-specific filing step: advisory cautions and notices, but also binding accountability rules that make the filer answerable for accuracy (the S.D. Tex. general order, Judge Grimberg's standing order, the Texas Business Court rule); the "Binding on attorneys" filter separates the two. Rules for court personnel or adjudicators and instruments not in force are not drawn. The count and breakdown appear in the tooltip. Nationwide tribunals (USPTO, JPML, EOIR, Tax Court) are tracked in the count and breakdown but excluded from the color so they don't wash out the per-state signal. On smaller states (RI, CT, DE, DC), use the "Choose state" picker below the map or keyboard arrow navigation from a focused neighbor. The map satisfies WCAG 2.5.8 via the picker (44 px+ touch targets for every state) and the keyboard adjacency map.
What do these filters mean?
- Binding on attorneys
- In force, addressed to attorneys, and carrying an obligation: disclosure, verification, a use restriction, a citation-accuracy certification, or a rule that makes the filer answerable for accuracy. Excludes cautions, notices, and rules for court personnel or parties only.
- Requires disclosure
- Order requires affirmative disclosure that AI was used in the filing.
- Requires verification
- Order names a step to verify, check, or confirm AI-generated content (citations, quotations) before filing, as a direct command or by making its omission sanctionable. General Rule 11 or due-care reminders count under Binding on attorneys instead. Each entry states whether a certification accompanies the step.
- Citation certification (technology-neutral)
- Rule requires the signer of every filing, whether or not AI was used, to certify or represent that the legal authorities cited are genuine (that they exist, are authentic, or are not fabricated). Not a disclosure of AI use; each entry states the exact terms of the rule.
- Cautions on use
- Order does not impose certification but warns of Rule 11 or analogous consequences for unverified AI content.
- Prohibits use
- Order prohibits AI use in filings outright, with or without exceptions.
- Applies to research
- Order's scope expressly includes AI-assisted legal research, not only drafting or summarization.
- Consequences: attorneys
- Order specifies sanctions, fees, or duties imposed on counsel personally (e.g., disclosure to opposing counsel, mandatory CLE, monetary sanctions).
- Consequences: parties
- Order specifies consequences imposed on the represented party (e.g., dismissal, adverse inference, evidentiary rulings).
Showing 251 of 251 orders.
Federal Courts of Appeals (3)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issued by the Oregon Court of Appeals | Or. Ct. App. | Apr 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby (D.C. Court of Appeals), Chief Judge Milton C. Lee (D.C. Superior Court), and Executive Officer Herbert Rouson, Jr. | D.C. | Mar 2026 | active | '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. | Sep 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (unsigned court decision) | 5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice) | Jun 2024 | active | The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time. | Sep 2026 |
Federal District Courts (113)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judge Anne Hwang | C.D. Cal. | Sep 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Orelia E. Merchant | E.D.N.Y. | Sep 2026 | active | 'The Court has a zero-tolerance policy for any filings that include AI-generated hallucinations, fabricated legal propositions, or severe misstatements of the law.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. N. Reid Neureiter, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Colo. | Sep 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Cathy Seibel | S.D.N.Y. | Sep 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Maria A. Lanahan, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Mo. | Sep 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle | N.D. Tex. | Sep 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Sep 2026 | active | 'This Standing Order applies to all civil cases that are assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Steve C. Jones, U.S. District Judge | N.D. Ga. | Aug 2026 | active | 'All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Nelson S. Román | S.D.N.Y. | Aug 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Nev. | Aug 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the Court (Local Criminal Rules) | D. Wyo. | Aug 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Mo. | Jul 2026 | active | '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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Martin Reidinger; Judges Max O. Cogburn Jr., Kenneth D. Bell, Susan C. Rodriguez, and Matthew E. Orso; Senior Judges Frank D. Whitney, Graham C. Mullen, and Richard L. Voorhees | W.D.N.C. | Jul 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Hector Gonzalez | E.D.N.Y. | Jul 2026 | active | 'The Court has a zero-tolerance policy for any filings that include AI-generated hallucinations, fabricated legal propositions, or severe misstatements of the law.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Marcia A. Crone, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Tex. | Jul 2026 | active | The requirement applies to 'all parties' when they submit a filing, whether 'represented or appearing pro se in criminal cases and/or civil cases.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. District Judge | W.D. Tex. | Jun 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Matthew E. Orso, U.S. District Judge | W.D.N.C. | Jun 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief U.S. District Judge | N.D.W.Va. | Jun 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Anna M. Manasco, U.S. District Judge | N.D. Ala. | Jun 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Published by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa | S.D. Iowa | Jun 2026 | active | 'Parties are personally responsible for verifying the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of their filings', including 'the use of AI generative content.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Joshua M. Divine, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Mo. and W.D. Mo. | Jun 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Court website notice (no issuing officer stated) | E.D. Wis. | Jun 2026 | active | 'Filers are advised that documents created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, U.S. District Judge | M.D. Fla. | May 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Arun Subramanian, U.S. District Judge | S.D.N.Y. | May 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Paul A. Engelmayer | S.D.N.Y. | May 2026 | active | 'Counsel is responsible for making complete and accurate representations as to the record, procedural history of the case, and any cited legal authorities.' | Oct 2026 |
| Nina Y. Wang, U.S. District Judge | D. Colo. | Apr 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Wendy W. Berger, U.S. District Judge | M.D. Fla. | Apr 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay | E.D.N.Y. | Apr 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge John A. Kazen | S.D. Tex. (Laredo Division) | Apr 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Krissa M. Lanham, U.S. District Judge | D. Ariz. | Mar 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. C. Ashley Royal, Senior U.S. District Judge | M.D. Ga. | Mar 2026 | active | 'The Court cautions Plaintiff that these generative AI technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.' | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes Jr. | N.D. Ohio | Mar 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Rita F. Lin | N.D. Cal. | Mar 2026 | active | 'Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Justin R. Olson, U.S. District Judge | S.D. Ind. | Mar 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. John L. Kane, Senior U.S. District Judge | D. Colo. | Mar 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo | S.D.N.Y. | Mar 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Joseph S. Dueker, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Mo. | Feb 2026 | active | '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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Steven D. Grimberg | N.D. Ga. | Feb 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen | N.D. Cal. | Feb 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg | N.D. Ohio | Feb 2026 | active | '[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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. | C.D. Cal. | Jan 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Published by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia | M.D. Ga. | Jan 2026 | active | 'Pro se parties are strongly encouraged to be cautious when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Dale E. Ho | S.D.N.Y. | Jan 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Jason A. Robertson, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Okla. | Jan 2026 | active | 'A reasonable inquiry requires human verification of cited authority. Reliance on automated or technological output alone is insufficient.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Otis D. Wright II, U.S. District Judge | C.D. Cal. | 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge S. Kato Crews | D. Colo. | Jan 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke | S.D.N.Y. | Jan 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke | S.D.N.Y. | Jan 2026 | active | 'Non-attorney pro se litigants are not prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence ("GAI") in filings or documents related to their cases.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Reggie B. Walton, Senior U.S. District Judge | D.D.C. | Dec 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Maritza Dominguez Braswell, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Colo. | Dec 2025 | active | Document is styled as 'guidance,' not a strict standing order, and does not impose a new pre-filing certification requirement. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Nina Y. Wang | D. Colo. | Dec 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker | S.D.N.Y. | Nov 2025 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim | E.D. Cal. | Nov 2025 | active | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Analisa Torres | S.D.N.Y. | Nov 2025 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst | E.D.N.Y. | Nov 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas (district-wide local rule amendment) | E.D. Tex. | Oct 2025 | active | All litigants are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative AI. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Vernon S. Broderick | S.D.N.Y. | Oct 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge John P. Cronan | S.D.N.Y. | Oct 2025 | active | All litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any output produced in whole or in part by an AI tool. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge James L. Graham | S.D. Ohio | Oct 2025 | active | '[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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the court on the recommendation of its Federal Practice Committee | D. Minn. | Oct 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Margaret I. Strickland | D.N.M. | Sep 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Issued by Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk of Court | D. Conn. | Sep 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Michael J. Newman | S.D. Ohio | Aug 2025 | active | No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins | S.D. Ohio | Aug 2025 | active | '[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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Trina L. Thompson | N.D. Cal. | Aug 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros | N.D. Cal. | Aug 2025 | active | AI use is not categorically prohibited. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Fernando M. Olguin | C.D. Cal. | Jul 2025 | active | Use of any AI tool (broader than 'generative') in the preparation of any filing triggers an automatic certification. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge John A. Kazen | S.D. Tex. (Laredo Division) | Jun 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella | M.D. Pa. | Jun 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Charles E. Fleming | N.D. Ohio | Jun 2025 | active | '[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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Annemarie Carney Axon, U.S. District Judge | N.D. Ala. | May 2025 | active | All counsel and pro se parties 'must disclose the use of artificial intelligence' in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. David L. Horan, U.S. Magistrate Judge | N.D. Tex. | May 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales | D.N.M. | May 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Randy Crane | S.D. Tex. | May 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Rossie D. Alston, Jr., U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Apr 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. John D. Love, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Tex. | Apr 2025 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson | N.D. Ga. | Mar 2025 | amended | 'Counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to prepare documents filed and submitted to the Court.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Kai N. Scott | E.D. Pa. | Mar 2025 | active | Applies when generative AI is used in a citation of any legal authority filed with the Court. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Robert E. Payne, Senior U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Feb 2025 | active | 'All attorneys and pro se filers must file a certification with any brief or memorandum submitted to the Court' stating two things. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Jeannette A. Vargas | S.D.N.Y. | Feb 2025 | active | 'The Court is aware that some pro se litigants will use ChatGPT to assist them with court filings.' | Oct 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo | M.D. Pa. | Jan 2025 | amended | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Vernon D. Oliver, U.S. District Judge | D. Conn. | 2025 | active | '[A]ttorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger, Senior U.S. District Judge | M.D. Fla. | Dec 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Court (en banc local rule amendment) | D. Neb. | Dec 2024 | amended | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Karoline Mehalchick | M.D. Pa. | Nov 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Susan Prose, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Colo. | Oct 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Fred W. Slaughter | C.D. Cal. | Sep 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Todd W. Robinson | S.D. Cal. | Sep 2024 | active | Acknowledges that generative AI tools may produce filings 'replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law' if used without verification. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., U.S. District Judge | E.D. Pa. | Sep 2024 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. José Raúl Arteaga, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Pa. | Sep 2024 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by all N.D. Tex. judges (Local Civil Rule) | N.D. Tex. | Sep 2024 | active | A brief prepared using generative AI must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading 'Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Eumi K. Lee, U.S. District Judge | N.D. Cal. | Aug 2024 | active | Use of generative artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Madeline Hughes Haikala | N.D. Ala. | Jul 2024 | active | 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. | May 2026 |
| Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge | E.D. Pa. | May 2024 | active | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Rozella A. Oliver, U.S. Magistrate Judge | C.D. Cal. | May 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | N.D. Ill. | Apr 2024 | amended | Any party using AI in connection with a filing must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and 26(g). | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Rolando Olvera, U.S. District Judge | S.D. Tex. (Brownsville Division) | Feb 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. David J. Novak, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Jan 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Roderick C. Young, U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Jan 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Published by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | E.D. Mo. | 2024 | active | '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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Iain D. Johnston | N.D. Ill. | Dec 2023 | active | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Christopher A. Boyko | N.D. Ohio | Dec 2023 | active | No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Henry E. Hudson, Senior U.S. District Judge | E.D. Va. | Dec 2023 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | N.D. Tex. (Amarillo Division) | Nov 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín | N.D. Cal. | Nov 2023 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Derrick K. Watson; Judges J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi, and Jill A. Otake | D. Haw. | Nov 2023 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap | E.D. Tex. | Oct 2023 | amended | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Senior U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi | D. Haw. | Sep 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Scott L. Palk | W.D. Okla. | Jul 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang | N.D. Cal. | Jul 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Donald W. Molloy, U.S. District Judge | D. Mont. | Jun 2023 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Michael M. Baylson | E.D. Pa. | Jun 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Gabriel A. Fuentes, U.S. Magistrate Judge | N.D. Ill. | May 2023 | amended | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
Federal Bankruptcy Courts (6)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan | E.D. Mich. (Bankruptcy) | May 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Court (unsigned announcement) | Bankr. S.D. W. Va. | Apr 2026 | active | 'It is necessary to remind all litigants, whether unrepresented or represented, that they are subject to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Christopher B. Latham and Judge J. Barrett Marum | S.D. Cal. (Bankruptcy) | Nov 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court (district-wide local rule) | S.D.N.Y. (Bankruptcy) | Sep 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Sarah A. Hall and Judge Janice D. Loyd (court-wide General Order) | W.D. Okla. Bankr. | Jul 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Northern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court (district-wide general order) | N.D. Tex. (Bankruptcy) | Jun 2023 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
Federal Specialty Courts (4)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sirce E. Owen, Acting Director (signed by digital signature, August 8, 2025) | EOIR (all adjudicatory components, particularly the Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals; nationwide) | Aug 2025 | active | EOIR has neither a blanket prohibition on the use of generative AI in its proceedings nor a mandatory disclosure requirement regarding its use. | Sep 2026 |
| Issued by the USPTO (Director Kathi Vidal) | USPTO (PTAB, TTAB, and patent/trademark practice) | Apr 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Claire R. Kelly | U.S. Court of International Trade | Mar 2024 | amended | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Senior Judge Jane A. Restani | U.S. Court of International Trade | Mar 2024 | amended | 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). | Sep 2026 |
State Courts (102)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judges Oscar Kazen (Probate Court No. 1), Veronica Vasquez (Probate Court No. 2) and Barbie Scharf-Zeldes (Probate Court No. 3) | Bexar County, Texas (Statutory Probate Courts) | Sep 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Todd L. Kassaw (159th) and Kristi C. Skillern (217th) | Angelina County, Texas (159th and 217th Judicial District Courts) | Sep 2026 | amended | The amended order 'applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of Angelina County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. John H. Ehrlich | Cook County, Ill. (Chancery) | Aug 2026 | active | 'Citations, holdings, and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence will result in the submission being stricken and may result in sanctions being imposed.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Jimmy Alan Hall (County Court at Law No. 1), Chris Johnson (County Court at Law No. 2) and Elaine S. Brown (County Court at Law No. 3) | Hays County, Texas (County Courts at Law, probate and guardianship proceedings) | Aug 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Rick McPherson (County Court at Law) and Rodger G. McLane (County Judge) | Panola County, Texas (County Court at Law and County Court) | Aug 2026 | active | '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'. | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Jason Cashon | Erath County, Texas (266th Judicial District Court) | Aug 2026 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 266th Judicial District Court of Erath County, Texas.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. David H. Emadi | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jul 2026 | active | 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). | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Monty Kimball | Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties) | Jul 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush for the Indiana Supreme Court (all Justices concurring) | Indiana (statewide) | Jul 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Robert C.I. McBurney | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jul 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Jeff McKnight (30th), Meredith Kennedy (78th) and Dobie Kosub (89th) | Texas (30th, 78th and 89th Judicial Districts: Wichita County) | Jul 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Benjamin J. Fosland | MT 15th Judicial District (Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties) | Jul 2026 | active | '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."' | Sep 2026 |
| Approved by the Appellate Court (2026-06-23) and the Supreme Court (2026-06-30) | Connecticut (statewide) | Jun 2026 | active | Section 60-4: '"Generative Artificial Intelligence" or "generative AI" shall have the same meaning as used in Section 4-9.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Kelly Lee Ellerbe | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jun 2026 | active | 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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Brett Hall (382nd), David E. Rakow (439th), J. Brian Williams (503rd), Keith P. Wheeler (County Court at Law No. 1) and Stephani Woodward (County Court at Law No. 2) | Rockwall County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Jun 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Suttell, C.J., and Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ. | Rhode Island (statewide) | Jun 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Superior Court | Connecticut (statewide) | Jun 2026 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Michael J. Norris, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Niagara Cnty.) | Jun 2026 | amended | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Issued by the North Dakota Court System | North Dakota (statewide) | Jun 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Susan Kelly (54th), Thomas West (19th), Peter Rusek (74th), Gina Long (170th), Ryan Luna (414th) and Alan Bennett (474th) | McLennan County, Texas (District Courts, civil and family cases) | Jun 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Per curiam (Muniz, C.J., and Labarga, Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, Sasso, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concurring) | Florida (statewide) | May 2026 | active | Each signer of a document filed with a Florida court represents that 'the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge William D. Old, III (25th District Court) and Judge Jessica Crawford (2nd 25th District Court); the Guadalupe County copy is also signed by Judge Heather K. Hines (456th District Court) | Texas (25th and 2nd 25th Judicial Districts) | May 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| President Judge Christopher A. Feliciani | Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas) | May 2026 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the district judges of Collin County | Collin County, Texas (District Courts) | May 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Brock R. Smith (271st District Court), Greg Lowery (County Court at Law No. 1) and Dana D. Manoushagian (County Court at Law No. 2) | Wise County, Texas (District Court and County Courts at Law) | May 2026 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Court and County Courts at Law of Wise County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Kemper Stephen Williams (135th), Julie C. Bauknight (267th), Lisa Harvey Moore (24th) and Eli Garza (377th) | Texas (24th, 135th, 267th and 377th Judicial Districts: Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties) | May 2026 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of the named counties.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge J. Brad McCampbell | Texas (402nd Judicial District: Wood County) | Apr 2026 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Court of Wood County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Scott McAfee | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Apr 2026 | active | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Kristin Bays, Presiding Judge | Texas (284th Judicial District: Montgomery County) | Apr 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Vincenzo J. Santini, Presiding Judge | Texas (457th Judicial District: Montgomery County) | Apr 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Scharlene W. Valdez, Presiding Judge | Montgomery County, Texas (County Court at Law No. 6) | Apr 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Michael J. Blee, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts | New Jersey (statewide) | Mar 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Grace M. Hanlon, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Chautauqua Cnty.) | Mar 2026 | amended | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by majority vote of the judges of the Criminal Courts of Tarrant County | Tarrant County, Texas (Criminal Courts) | Mar 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the Chief Administrator of the Courts (Administrative Order 75) | New York (statewide, all UCS civil and criminal courts) | Mar 2026 | active | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Per the Court in conference (signed by the Chief Justice; all justices concur) | Oklahoma (statewide) | Mar 2026 | active | 'The Supreme Court does not discourage the use of AI in Oklahoma courts, provided its use complies with legal and ethical standards.' | Sep 2026 |
| Abigail E. Voelker | KY 17th Judicial Circuit (Campbell County), Family Court Division III | Mar 2026 | active | '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. | Sep 2026 |
| Lumpkin, P.J., Musseman, V.P.J., Lewis, Hudson, and Rowland, JJ. | Okla. Ct. Crim. App. | Feb 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Phillip Gregory | Texas (90th Judicial District: Young and Stephens Counties) | Feb 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes | D. Kan. | Jan 2026 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Presiding Judge Ralph M. Ramirez | WI Waukesha County | Jan 2026 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Court | KY 5th Judicial Circuit (Crittenden, Union and Webster Counties), Family Court | Jan 2026 | active | '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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Douglas H. Freitag (140th, Local Administrative Judge), John Grace (72nd), Phillip Hays (99th), John (Trey) McClendon, III (137th), Les Hatch (237th), William R. Eichman, II (364th), Mark Hocker (County Court at Law No. 1), Tom Brummett (No. 2) and Ben Webb (No. 3) | Lubbock County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Jan 2026 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Entered by Chief Judge Jacqueline S. McClenney | Va. Cir. Ct. (Richmond) | Jan 2026 | active | 'The use of artificial intelligence ("AI") tools is not prohibited in this Court.' | Sep 2026 |
| Court | MO 46th Judicial Circuit (Taney County) | Dec 2025 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges David W. Jahn (Probate Court No. 1) and Christopher J. Everett (Probate Court No. 2) and Associate Judge Edward J. Nolter | Denton County, Texas (Probate Courts) | Dec 2025 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the Probate Courts of Denton County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Per curiam | Arkansas (statewide) | Dec 2025 | active | 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)'. | Oct 2026 |
| Judicial Ethics Advisory Board | PA (statewide judicial branch) | Dec 2025 | active | 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). | Oct 2026 |
| Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Martin B. (Marty) McGee | Cabarrus County, NC | Dec 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Court | KY 56th Judicial Circuit (Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon and Trigg Counties) | Dec 2025 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Circuit Judge Patrick G. King | Madison County, Ill. | Nov 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, General Division | Montgomery County, Ohio (Court of Common Pleas, General Division) | Nov 2025 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Mélynee Leftridge | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Nov 2025 | active | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Yolanda R. Mack | DeKalb Cnty. State Ct. (Ga.) | Nov 2025 | active | 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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Court | MT 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties) | Oct 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Sherry Shipman (16th), Steve Burgess (158th), Brody Shanklin (211th), Bruce McFarling (362nd), Brent Hill (367th), Karen Alexander (393rd), Jim Johnson (431st), Tiffany Haertling (442nd), Lee Ann Breading (462nd), Derbha Jones (467th), Michael Dickens (477th) and Crystal Levonius (481st) | Denton County, Texas (District Courts) | Oct 2025 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the District Courts of Denton County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Ana María Martinez | DeKalb Cnty. State Ct. (Ga.) | Oct 2025 | active | 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).' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas | New York (statewide unified court system) | Oct 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| President Judge Leonard G. Brown, III | Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas) | Oct 2025 | active | '[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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber and Associate Justices Harold E. Eaton, Jr., William D. Cohen, and Nancy J. Waples | Vermont (statewide) | Oct 2025 | amended | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Issued by the OAH's chief, Bryan Nickels | Idaho OAH | Sep 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Per Curiam (on the recommendation of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee) | PA (statewide judicial branch) | Sep 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Jay L. Himes, Administrative Law Judge | FTC ALJ | Sep 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Belinda E. Edwards | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Aug 2025 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Chap B. Cain, III (253rd, Local Administrative District Judge), Robert H. Trapp (presiding judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region, sitting as judge of the 75th District Court), Thomas Chambers (County Court at Law No. 1) and Wesley N. Hinch (County Court at Law No. 2) | Liberty County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Aug 2025 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Thomas A. Cox, Jr. | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Aug 2025 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the County Courts at Law of Hays County | Hays County, Texas (County Courts at Law) | Jul 2025 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Hon. Alice Benton | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jul 2025 | active | 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). | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025; court-adoption deadline Dec. 15, 2025) | Cal. (statewide) | Jul 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025) | Cal. (statewide) | Jul 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Craig L. Schwall, Sr. | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jul 2025 | active | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Court | KS 10th Judicial District (Johnson County) | Jun 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief U.S. District Judge Scott W. Skavdahl | D. Wyo. | May 2025 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Justice John W. Kittredge | South Carolina (statewide judicial branch) | Mar 2025 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Carson Campbell (21st District) and Judge John D. Winkelmann (335th District) | Texas (21st and 335th Judicial Districts: Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties) | Mar 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Courtney Arkeen (128th), Rex Peveto (163rd), Steve Parkhurst (260th), Mandy White-Rogers (County Court at Law) and Rodney Townsend (County Court at Law No. 2) | Orange County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Mar 2025 | active | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Business Court of Texas (Bouressa, Whitehill, Andrews, Sweeten, Barnard, Sharp, Bullard, Stagner, Adrogué; Dorfman as Administrative Presiding Judge) | Texas (statewide, Business Court only) | Mar 2025 | active | Use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited. | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Judge Donald Harris (adopted); Chief Judge Thomas Pardy (re-adopted) | MT 13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County) | Feb 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Carson Campbell (21st), John D. Winkelmann (335th), Christopher D. Duggan (423rd) and Elizabeth F. Beyer (465th) | Bastrop County, Texas (District Courts) | Feb 2025 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed cases' in the 21st, 335th, 423rd and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County. | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court on recommendation of the Judicial Conference Task Force on AI | Illinois (statewide) | Jan 2025 | active | AI use 'may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Peter Allen Weinmann, Justice of the Supreme Court | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Erie Cnty.) | Jan 2025 | amended | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Jonathan G. Schopf, Surrogate | N.Y. Surr. Ct. (Saratoga Cnty.) | Jan 2025 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge John L. Pool | Texas (109th Judicial District: Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties) | Dec 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judges Dee Johnson (47th), Douglas R. Woodburn (108th), Titiana D. Frausto (181st), Ana E. Estevez (251st), Steven Denny (320th), Walt Weaver and Matthew Hand (Potter County Courts at Law Nos. 1 and 2), and James Anderson and Matthew Martindale (Randall County Courts at Law Nos. 1 and 2) | Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Nov 2024 | active | 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)' | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel | IL 22nd Circuit (McHenry County) | Oct 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| President Judge S. Michael Yeager | Butler County, Pennsylvania (Court of Common Pleas) | Sep 2024 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Bryan Russ, Jr. | Falls and Robertson Counties, Texas (82nd Judicial District Court) | Aug 2024 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Sherri K. Tibbe (453rd), Tracie Wright-Reneau (207th), Joe Pool (428th), R. Bruce Boyer (22nd), Gary L. Steel (274th) and Tanner Neidhardt (483rd) | Hays County, Texas (District Courts) | Aug 2024 | active | 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:' | Oct 2026 |
| Court | MO 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) | Jul 2024 | active | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| County Judge Chris Porter | Gray County, Texas (County Court) | Jul 2024 | active | Applies 'to every pending or hereafter filed case in the Gray County Court.' | Oct 2026 |
| County Judge Joanna E. MacKenzie | Hudspeth County, Texas (County Court) | Jul 2024 | active | 'This Standing Order of the Hudspeth County Court applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in Hudspeth County.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judges Corinne Mason, Barnett Walker, Lance S. Baxter, David Rippel, Randy Johnson, Jay A. Bender and David Waddill | Collin County, Texas (County Courts at Law) | Jul 2024 | active | '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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Court | KS 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County) | Jun 2024 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Aaron D. Maslow, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Kings Cnty.) | Jun 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted en banc by the judges of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas | Hamilton County, Ohio (Court of Common Pleas, General Division, including Commercial Docket) | May 2024 | active | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the District Courts and County Courts at Law of Williamson County | Williamson County, Texas (District Courts and County Courts at Law) | Apr 2024 | active | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Judge John J. Russo | Cuyahoga County, OH | Feb 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Kimberly A. Knill | Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.) | Jan 2024 | amended | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts (notice issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey) | New Jersey (statewide) | Jan 2024 | active | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Tandra L. Dawson, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (N.Y. Cnty.) | Jan 2024 | active | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the Civil District Judges of Bexar County, Texas | Texas (Bexar County, Civil District Courts only) | Jan 2024 | amended | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Brian Weinthal, Chief Administrative Law Judge | Ill. (Human Rights Commission) | Aug 2023 | amended | '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) | Sep 2026 |
Adopted or proposed, not yet in force (3)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public comment notice) | 10th Cir. | Sep 2026 | Proposed, not in force (comments due Oct 18, 2026) | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the Iowa Supreme Court | Iowa (statewide) | Jul 2026 | Adopted, takes effect Jan 1, 2027 | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Supreme Court of Texas (Chief Justice James D. Blacklock and the Justices) | Texas (statewide) | Jun 2026 | Proposed, not in force (comments closed Sep 1, 2026) | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
No longer in force (rescinded, superseded, or lapsed) (20)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Judge Glenn D. Kelley | FL 15th Circuit (Palm Beach) | Apr 2026 | rescinded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Claudia L. Laird, Presiding Judge | Montgomery County, Texas (Probate Court No. 1) | Apr 2026 | rescinded | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Melanie Chase | FL 18th Circuit (Brevard, Seminole) | Feb 2026 | rescinded | Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose use of generative AI on the face of the filing. | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips | FL 17th Circuit (Broward) | Jan 2026 | rescinded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan | FL 11th Circuit (Miami-Dade) | Jan 2026 | rescinded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Charles A. Schwab | FL 19th Circuit (Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie) | Dec 2025 | rescinded | 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). | Oct 2026 |
| Adopted by Chief Judge Jack Tuter (signed 2025-04-08; exhibits filed 2025-04-15) | Fla. Cir. (17th JC, Broward Cnty.) | Apr 2025 | rescinded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Judge Roy B. Ferguson | Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties) | Aug 2024 | superseded | 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.' | Oct 2026 |
| Chief Judge Martin Reidinger | W.D.N.C. | Jun 2024 | superseded | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Cecilia A. Horan | Cook County, Ill. (Chancery) | Apr 2024 | rescinded | 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). | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Charles Barnard | Texas (89th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | superseded | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Jeff McKnight | Texas (30th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | superseded | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Meredith Kennedy | Texas (78th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | superseded | 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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Gerald V. Cleary III | Cook County, Ill. (Law) | Feb 2024 | rescinded | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Emilio Colaiacovo, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Erie Cnty.) | Feb 2024 | rescinded | '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.' | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Jason A. Robertson, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Okla. | Sep 2023 | superseded | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Hon. Evelyn Padin | D.N.J. | Aug 2023 | rescinded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Jeffrey N. Cole (retired May 6, 2025) | N.D. Ill. | Jul 2023 | Lapsed: the issuing judge left the court on 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden | U.S. Court of International Trade | Jun 2023 | Lapsed: the issuing judge left the court on Jul 7, 2025 | 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. | Sep 2026 |
| Adopted by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer | Idaho OAH | Jan 2023 | superseded | 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. | Oct 2026 |
No orders match the current filters.
Every entry is verified against its primary source. Open an entry's page for full citations and verification details.