N.D. Ga.: Civil Standing Order, Section 3.A (Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence…
Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Civil Standing Order, Section 3.A (Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson, N.D. Ga.)
- Order date
- March 31, 2025
Summary
All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.
What does the order require?
- All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.
- If AI was used in any way to prepare a filing or submission to the Court or chambers, counsel and pro se parties are REQUIRED to sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence.
- Required disclosure language: 'This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool name]. 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, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'
- 'Mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints are typically not recognized by the Court as a good faith excuse for submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure rule.'
- Arguments in briefs supported by AI-generated caselaw (i.e., cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable.
- Failure to comply may result in 'appropriate sanctions, up to and including dismissal and/or default judgment.'
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Judge Tiffany R. Johnson’s civil standing order, Section 3.A, requires all counsel and pro se parties to disclose AI use “in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.” The disclosure mechanism is an as-filed Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence form bearing the certification language quoted above, signed under penalty of perjury and tied explicitly to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Three elements of the rule are notable. First, the scope is “in any capacity,” sweeping both drafting and review uses (an AI proofread of an existing draft triggers disclosure). Second, the order pre-empts the most common excuses by name: mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints “are typically not recognized” as good faith excuses. Third, the rule expressly addresses hallucinated cases: “arguments in briefs to the Court which are supported by AI-generated caselaw (i.e., cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable.”
The compliance section authorizes “appropriate sanctions, up to and including dismissal and/or default judgment.” Within the N.D. Ga. bench, this is the strict-disclosure pole. The Hon. Steven D. Grimberg’s standing order is the responsibility-allocation pole and does not require disclosure or certification.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2025-02-08. The N.D. Ga. site’s PDF is last-modified 2025-03-31 (HTTP headers); the operative posting/revision date appears to be 2025-03-31. R&G is off by approximately seven weeks. The PDF as posted is the canonical authority. The certification language is closely mirrored by Hon. Craig L. Schwall’s Fulton County Superior Court standing order (2025-07-11), suggesting cross-court adoption of the N.D. Ga. template.
Quotable language
“All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court.”
“This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool name]. 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, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“Counsel and pro se parties are cautioned that mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints are typically not recognized by the Court as a good faith excuse for submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure rule.”
“Failure to comply with this rule may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and including dismissal and/or default judgment.”