Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

No affirmative disclosure of AI use is required. The order does require that AI-generated content (citations, quotations, factual assertions) be independently verified for accuracy before filing; the key requirements above state how the order frames that duty and whether any certification accompanies it.

What are the consequences for attorneys who violate this order?

This order provides for consequences imposed on counsel personally for noncompliance. The specific remedies it authorises are set out in the requirements listed on this page; they vary by order and are applied at the court's discretion.

N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section E.4: Technological Assistance, Including AI (Case…

Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

active

Verified September 30, 2026

Citation: Civil Standing Order Section E.4: Technological Assistance, Including AI (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cisneros)
Order date: August 14, 2025

Summary

AI use is not categorically prohibited.

What does the order require?

AI use is not categorically prohibited.
The Court will impute any errors by computer-based tools to the attorney or unrepresented party whose signature appears on the document containing those errors.
Failure to verify the accuracy of briefs, and particularly the accuracy of citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions and/or striking a filing.

Practice areas: federal civil

Verify this order against the court's official website before relying on it. Standing orders are amended without notice. Requirements vary by judge and case type.

What the order requires

Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros’s civil standing order (Section E.4, in force since at least August 14, 2025 and carried into the February 17, 2026 version) takes a Rule 11 imputation approach: AI and other technological assistance is permitted, but the Court imputes any errors by computer-based tools to the attorney or unrepresented party who signed the document, and failure to verify the accuracy of briefs, particularly citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions or striking a filing. There is no separate disclosure or certification requirement; the rule is a clarification of how Rule 11 operates with AI-assisted work.

This is one of the simpler N.D. Cal. AI provisions to comply with operationally (no new procedural step at filing time), but the imputation language forecloses the “the AI made it up” excuse that has surfaced in recent sanctions decisions.

Primary source

Standing order: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf

N.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order Section E.4: Technological Assistance, Including AI (Case…

Summary

What does the order require?

What the order requires

Primary source

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders

From the blog