N.D. Ala.: Initial Order, Section XI (Use of AI to Create Court Submissions) (Hon. Madeli…
Hon. Madeline Hughes Haikala · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Initial Order, Section XI (Use of AI to Create Court Submissions) (Hon. Madeline Hughes Haikala, N.D. Ala.)
- Order date
- July 8, 2024
Summary
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.
What does the order require?
- 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.
- The Court does not prohibit the use of AI.
- To comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable legal and ethical standards, attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify computer-generated content to ensure that it is accurate and complies with all governing standards.
- No formal disclosure or certification is required by the order; the rule operates as a Rule 11 reminder rather than a chambers-specific certification regime.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Section XI of Judge Haikala’s Initial Order takes a Rule 11 reminder posture rather than a chambers-specific disclosure regime. The rule warns counsel and pro se litigants that AI tools may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and reminds them that Rule 11 already requires review and verification of any computer-generated content used in filings. There is no certification requirement, no required disclosure language, and no chambers-specific sanction beyond what Rule 11 itself authorizes.
The order is on the permissive end of the federal trial-court bench’s AI-rule spectrum. It sits between the strict-disclosure pole (e.g., Hon. Brantley Starr’s mandatory certification in N.D. Tex.) and the no-rule pole (chambers with no AI-specific guidance). For practitioners in Judge Haikala’s chambers, the practical effect is that AI-assisted drafting requires the same Rule 11 inquiry that any human-drafted filing requires, with explicit attention to the inaccuracy risks named in the order.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2024-07-08, which matches the file-name date stamp on the PDF (MHH Initial Order as of 7-8-24). No correction needed.
Quotable language
“Lawyers and pro se litigants who use technology like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or other generative artificial intelligence 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.”
“The Court does not prohibit the use of AI, but to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable legal and ethical standards, attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify computer-generated content to ensure that it is accurate and complies with all such governing standards.”