M.D. Fla.: Standing Order: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W…
Hon. Wendy W. Berger, U.S. District Judge · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W. Berger, M.D. Fla.)
- Order date
- April 2, 2026
Summary
All parties appearing before Judge Berger, 'through counsel or pro se,' must certify at the end of any filing either '(1) That no generative AI was used in the drafting and preparation of the filing; or' (2) that any AI-drafted language was reviewed and its citations checked.
What does the order require?
- All parties appearing before Judge Berger, 'through counsel or pro se,' must certify at the end of any filing either '(1) That no generative AI was used in the drafting and preparation of the filing; or' (2) that any AI-drafted language was reviewed and its citations checked.
- Under the second option, the filer certifies that 'any language drafted by AI', including language 'later edited by a human', 'was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual, non-fictitious cases or cited authority and accurately reflect the contents of such authority.'
- 'The AI Certification does not count against any page limitations.'
- 'Filings that do not comply with this Order may be stricken without substantive consideration and without leave to amend.'
- 'Numerous failures to comply with the certification requirement set forth in this Order or to otherwise properly review and ensure the accuracy of AI generated content will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of claims with prejudice, default, and referral to the proper licensing authority.'
- 'All filings remain subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and applicable ethical rules.'
Practice areas: federal civil
What the order requires
Judge Berger’s order, entered in Jacksonville on April 2, 2026, requires “all parties appearing before her, through counsel or pro se, to certify at the end of any filing” one of two things:
- “That no generative AI was used in the drafting and preparation of the filing; or”
- “To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, that any language drafted by AI”, including language “later edited by a human”, “was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual, non-fictitious cases or cited authority and accurately reflect the contents of such authority.”
The certification “does not count against any page limitations.”
Consequences
The order sets two tiers. A non-compliant filing “may be stricken without substantive consideration and without leave to amend.” Repeated failures, whether to certify or “to otherwise properly review and ensure the accuracy of AI generated content,” “will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of claims with prejudice, default, and referral to the proper licensing authority.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and ethical rules continue to apply to every filing.
How it compares
Like Judge Moe’s order in the Orlando Division, Berger’s rule asks for a statement on every filing, including those prepared without AI. It differs in two ways: the wording is not prescribed verbatim, and the human review may be done “by the filer or another human,” not necessarily the signer.
Primary source
Standing Order, In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (PDF)