N.D. Cal.: Standing Order for Civil Cases, Section VIII.H (Use of Generative AI Tools) (H…

What the rule requires

Section VIII.H of Judge Lee’s civil standing order combines a verification-and-certification regime with a prompt-records retention requirement that few other chambers impose. The rule’s three operative provisions are: (1) personal counsel verification of AI-conducted research and AI-generated content, (2) lead-trial-counsel certification that the AI-generated content was personally verified for accuracy, and (3) records retention for all prompts and inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools.

The third provision is doctrinally distinctive. Most federal trial-court chambers AI rules focus on the filing as the disclosure unit; Lee’s rule extends backward into the workflow and creates a discoverable artifact (the prompt record). Counsel using AI for research or drafting must therefore preserve their AI-tool prompt history as a litigation record, anticipating that the records may “become relevant at any point.” This functionally requires firms practicing before chambers to implement prompt logging and retention for any AI-assisted work on chambers matters.

The certification’s specificity is also notable: it must be “lead trial counsel” who personally verifies, not any associate or non-trial counsel. The rule reaches generative AI specifically (the 2024 text named ChatGPT as the example; the 2026 update drops the product name) and applies to attorneys; it does not address pro se litigants directly because the lead-trial-counsel framing assumes representation.

Revision history

The provision entered the standing order on August 16, 2024 as Section VIII.G. The August 28, 2025 update added a Meet and Confer Requirement as Section VIII.A, which renumbered the provision to Section VIII.H. The August 31, 2026 update removed the words “ChatGPT or other such” from the first sentence. No obligation changed.

R&G data corrections

Ropes & Gray’s tracker dates this entry 2024-08-16, which matches the date on the order that introduced the provision; no correction needed on the date. The tracker and this entry’s earlier text described the issuer as a magistrate judge; Judge Lee has been a District Judge since May 2024, and both versions of the order are captioned “before Judge Eumi K. Lee”.

Quotable language

“Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of generative artificial intelligence 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.”

“Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or comply with this verification requirement will be grounds for sanctions.”

“Counsel is responsible for maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event those records become relevant at any point.”

Primary source

Standing Order for Civil Cases before Judge Eumi K. Lee (updated August 31, 2026), cand.uscourts.gov, listed on the judge’s page.