N.D. Ga.: Civil Standing Order, Section V.c (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Steven D. Gri…
Hon. Steven D. Grimberg · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Civil Standing Order, Section V.c (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Steven D. Grimberg, N.D. Ga.)
- Order date
- February 10, 2026
Summary
Section V.c of Judge Grimberg's civil standing order (under Section V, Trial) addresses artificial intelligence in a single paragraph and does not require disclosure or certification.
What does the order require?
- Section V.c of Judge Grimberg's civil standing order (under Section V, Trial) addresses artificial intelligence in a single paragraph and does not require disclosure or certification.
- The rule allocates responsibility rather than imposing AI-specific procedural duties: 'You can use whatever AI tools you like, but only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome.'
- If a pleading or paper filed in a case contains factual or legal errors, the party and lawyers who filed it will be held responsible. This includes each and every lawyer listed on the signature block.
- The standing order binds cases in which this version is entered on the docket; parties 'are not responsible for complying with any updated or amended version of the Standing Order that appears on the Court's website' unless all parties consent in writing.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Judge Grimberg’s standing order takes a notably different posture from the disclosure-and-certification regime adopted by Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson and other N.D. Ga. judges. Section V.c of the civil standing order, under Section V (Trial), is one paragraph long and contains no AI disclosure mandate, no certification language, and no pre-filing verification procedure. The rule’s content is a single principle of responsibility allocation: lawyers and parties may use AI tools freely, but they are accountable for what they file. Errors in AI-assisted filings rest with the lawyers on the signature block and the parties.
The rule’s effect is therefore to restate the existing Rule 11 reasonable-inquiry duty rather than to add procedural requirements on top. Counsel comparing the standing orders across the N.D. Ga. bench should note that Grimberg’s chambers does not require Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence forms or in-document certifications, while Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson’s chambers does, with explicit penalty-of-perjury language.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2026-02-17. The order is signed “SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2026,” matching the filename date 20260210; R&G is off by a week. The PDF as posted is the canonical authority.
Quotable language
“You can use whatever AI tools you like, but only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome. So, if a pleading or paper that is filed in a case contains factual or legal errors, the party and lawyers who filed it will be held responsible. This includes each and every lawyer listed on the signature block of the filing.”
Primary source
Sanctions cases decided under this order
Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.
- Booker v. The Kroger Co. , Aug 2026 ($8,000 fine to the court registry's general sanctions fund ($1,000 for each of four authorities, doubled for lying to the court); documentation of completed ethics and technology CLE due within 7 days)