Cabarrus County, NC: Superior Court of Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) Revised Adm…

What the order does

Revised Administrative Order 25-09, filed December 8, 2025, “replaces and supersedes the Court’s order entered on July 23, 2024.” Issued by Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Martin B. McGee, it applies to “all civil and criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County).”

The order’s organising idea is stated in its Appendix A as a “Bright-Line Function Rule: AI that affects evidence = disclosure. AI that affects advocacy only = no disclosure.” Drafting a brief, motion, or pleading with AI, checking citations, and using AI for research require no notice, “no form, no certification, no notice.” Disclosure attaches when AI is used to create, alter, enhance, or analyze evidence, or to generate factual summaries, narratives, or timelines served or offered as proof.

AI use is permitted across litigation work, including research, drafting, discovery support, transcription, and translation, but always “subject to Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) oversight and independent verification of accuracy, validity, and reliability.” The submitting party “remains responsible for the content of any filing, representation to the Court, or presentation, whether or not AI tools were used.”

The 90-day disclosure rule

A party that “generates, offers, materially alters, enhances, or analyzes evidence using AI” must promptly disclose the nature and scope of that use. “Absent a contrary scheduling order, disclosure must occur no later than 90 days before trial. If AI-related evidence is discovered inside that window, disclosure must be made immediately.” The order ties the timing to the court’s evidentiary gatekeeping: authenticity and reliability questions raised mid-trial leave no time for motion practice. Disputes go through a meet-and-confer process, and suspected deepfakes must, absent extraordinary circumstances, be raised and heard pretrial.

Disclosures “must be served on all parties and need not be filed with the Court unless included in a motion seeking court action.” Appendix B supplies an optional checklist form; it is “not the exclusive means of making disclosure.” Technology-assisted review, predictive coding, and similar tools used only to search or review documents for production need not be disclosed, so long as they are not used to generate factual statements offered as evidence.

Recording and note-taking in court

No one other than the official court reporter, digital court reporter, or clerk “may use any AI tools or automated technologies to capture, record, transcribe, process, or alter audio or video during court proceedings without express authorization from the presiding judge.” Legal research tools may be used during hearings so long as they do not disrupt the proceedings. Jurors “are prohibited from using AI to research, analyze, or summarize case information or for any other purpose.”

Confidentiality and sanctions

Public AI tools “shall not be used with confidential, privileged, sealed, proprietary, or otherwise protected information” without reliable assurances that inputs will not be stored, reviewed by humans, or used to train models.

The order states that its goal “is to avoid sanctions,” but sanctions remain available under N.C. R. Civ. P. 11, 26(g), and 37, Chapter 15A and the contempt provisions of Chapter 5A in criminal matters, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the court’s inherent authority. A safe harbor protects parties who make timely, good-faith disclosures, take reasonable steps to verify authenticity and reliability, and cooperate on validation, absent bad faith, willfulness, or substantial prejudice that cannot be cured.

How this differs from the W.D.N.C. federal order

The Western District of North Carolina’s 2026 order on the use of AI also requires no AI disclosure in filings, but it makes every filing a deemed certification that authorities exist and are accurately cited and that quotations are verbatim, verified by a human. Cabarrus reaches a similar place for advocacy through its HITL requirement and the existing Rule 11 duty, and adds what the federal order does not have: a served-disclosure regime and a 90-day deadline for AI-affected evidence. The earlier 2024 W.D.N.C. standing order, which required an AI-use certificate with every brief, was superseded on July 29, 2026.

Background

Judge McGee is a fellow in the 2025-2026 cohort of RAILS (Responsible AI in Legal Services), a network hosted by the Duke Center on Law & Technology; the RAILS fellows page links this revised order and the Quick Reference Guide. The order’s first footnote invites recommendations for improving it and states: “The Court used AI tools to assist in preparing this Order.”

Primary sources

Filed Revised Administrative Order 25-09 (PDF): https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf

Quick Reference Guide (PDF): https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/AI%20Quick%20Reference%20Guide.pdf

Wayback backup (order PDF): https://web.archive.org/web/2025/https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf