Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

Yes. The order requires counsel to certify or affirm that AI-generated content (citations, quotations, factual assertions) was independently verified before filing.

What are the consequences for attorneys who violate this order?

The order specifies sanctions, fees, or duties imposed on counsel personally for noncompliance, which may include disclosure to opposing counsel, mandatory CLE, monetary sanctions, or other measures at the court's discretion.

N.D. Cal.: Civil and Discovery Referral Standing Order Section 10: Use of AI (Cases Assig…

Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

active

Verified April 27, 2026

Citation: Civil and Discovery Referral Standing Order Section 10: Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge van Keulen)
Order date: February 2, 2026

Summary

The signature of counsel or a self-represented party on any submission containing AI-generated content, including AI-generated citations, constitutes a certification that the signing attorney has personally verified the content's accuracy.

What does the order require?

The signature of counsel or a self-represented party on any submission containing AI-generated content, including AI-generated citations, constitutes a certification that the signing attorney has personally verified the content's accuracy.
The Court will impute any errors by AI tools to the attorney or party whose signature appears.
Counsel is responsible for maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools.
Cites Rule 11 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct; lists ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini by name.

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 Susan van Keulen’s standing order, Section 10, took effect February 2, 2026. It uses a “signature-as-certification” mechanism. Signing a filing that contains AI-generated content is itself a representation that the signing attorney has personally verified its accuracy. There is no separate certification block to draft. The order also imputes AI errors to the signer and requires prompt-record retention.

Compared to Lee or Martínez-Olguín, the signature-as-certification design simplifies compliance: no separate certification text to append. The stakes on the signing process are higher, though. Every signature on an AI-touched filing is a verification representation, carrying Rule 11 sanctions exposure for false representations.

Primary source

Standing order: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf

N.D. Cal.: Civil and Discovery Referral Standing Order Section 10: Use of AI (Cases Assig…

Summary

What does the order require?

What the order requires

Primary source

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders