Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.): Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and…
Hon. Craig L. Schwall, Sr. · Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs and Proposed Orders in Judge Schwall's Division (Fulton County Superior Court)
- Order date
- July 11, 2025
Summary
Order applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Schwall's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).
What does the order require?
- Order applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Schwall's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants).
- Any attorney or pro se litigant who uses AI in any capacity to prepare, draft, or review a filing must disclose the use in the document with a two-part certification at the end of the document, before the signature block.
- Part one: 'This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool(s) used, e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, etc.]. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that, despite reliance on an AI tool, I have independently reviewed this document to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and use of good and applicable law.'
- Part two: 'I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that every citation to law, case, statute, or the record in this document has been verified as accurate and that it exists as cited and for the proposition cited.'
- Failure to comply may result in 'striking the filing, imposing sanctions, or disciplinary referral.' Mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses.
- AI use does not relieve any attorney or pro se litigant of obligations under Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence) and 3.1 (Meritorious Claims).
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal
What the rule requires
Judge Schwall’s standing order in Fulton County Superior Court requires any attorney or pro se litigant who uses AI in any capacity to prepare, draft, or review a filing to disclose the use in the document with a two-part penalty-of-perjury certification placed at the end of the document, before the signature block. The first certification names the AI tool(s) and attests to independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and applicable law. The second certification attests that every citation to law, case, statute, or the record has been verified as accurate and exists as cited and for the proposition cited.
The rule is broader than many AI disclosure orders in two ways. First, it applies to AI use in “any capacity” including review (not just drafting), so an attorney running an existing draft through an AI summarizer for proofreading triggers the disclosure. Second, it applies to both criminal and civil dockets in Judge Schwall’s division, where many AI rules are confined to civil practice.
The compliance section is unusually direct: “Mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses for noncompliance.” Available remedies include striking the filing, imposing sanctions, or disciplinary referral. The order also expressly preserves Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence) and 3.1 (Meritorious Claims) as independent obligations.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2025-07-11, which matches the “Filed in Office” stamp on the order PDF (Order No. 25EX00262). No correction needed. The certification language closely mirrors the disclosure rule used by Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson (N.D. Ga.) in her standing order, suggesting the Schwall order may be adapted from or harmonized with the N.D. Ga. precedent.
Quotable language
“This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool(s) used, e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, etc.]. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that, despite reliance on an AI tool, I have independently reviewed this document to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and use of good and applicable law.”
“I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that every citation to law, case, statute, or the record in this document has been verified as accurate and that it exists as cited and for the proposition cited.”
“Mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses for noncompliance.”
Primary source
Standing Order regarding AI and Citation Certification (Schwall, J.), fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov