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 May 8, 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.
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 N.D. Ga. site’s PDF is last-modified 2026-02-10 (HTTP headers) and the filename embeds the date 20260210. The 2026-02-10 date appears to be the operative posting date; R&G is off by approximately 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.”