October 18, 2026 (in 9 days): Tenth Circuit: comments close on 2027 rules, incl. proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) generative-AI review →

KS 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County): Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125: Plea…

Court · Third Judicial District of Kansas, Shawnee County District Court

active

Verified September 28, 2026

Citation
Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence
Order date
June 14, 2024

Summary

Filers using generative AI must 'verify that any language, materials or content that was generated was checked for accuracy, using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.'

What does the order require?

Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate

Verify this order against the court's official website before relying on it. Standing orders are amended without notice. Requirements vary by judge and case type.

What the rule requires

Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125, effective June 14, 2024, was among the first state-trial-court generative AI disclosure rules in the United States. It applies in the District Court of Shawnee County (Topeka), which makes up Kansas’s Third Judicial District on its own.

  1. Accuracy verification before filing. Filers must verify AI-generated language using “print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.” The rule’s text rejects AI output as a self-validating source.
  2. First-page disclosure. AI use must be disclosed “in writing and clearly marked on the first page” of the filing. The disclosure travels to the court and to all opposing parties at the moment of filing.
  3. Accuracy certification. The disclosure must include a certification that the AI-generated content was checked for accuracy.
  4. Both attorneys and pro se litigants. The rule names both populations and exposes both to sanctions.
  5. Sanctions reserved. “Violation of this rule may subject attorneys and pro se litigants to sanctions.” The rule does not enumerate specific penalties; trial courts retain ordinary sanctioning authority.

Scope

Generative AI only. The rule lists ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, and Google Bard as illustrative tools. Traditional legal-research databases are the verification benchmark, not the disclosure trigger.

The rule operates at the trial-court level in the Third Judicial District. The Kansas Supreme Court’s Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee is studying AI use and will recommend policies to the Supreme Court; no statewide rule imposing equivalent disclosure was located as of September 2026.

Practitioner workflow

For Shawnee County matters, the disclosure belongs on page one. The rule requires a statement that the document contains AI-generated language, materials, or content, with a certification that it was checked for accuracy. It does not require naming the tool or identifying which passages were AI-generated, though a firm may choose to. Other Kansas districts set their own rules. Johnson County (Tenth Judicial District) has required a Generative AI certification on every filing since June 1, 2025, under Local Civil Rule 3.7: a statement either that no generative AI was used or naming the tool used and certifying independent verification. Unlike Shawnee’s rule, it applies whether or not AI was used.

Federal counterpart

For federal filings in Kansas, see D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 (effective Jan. 28, 2026), which imposes verification duties without a mandatory disclosure form, while reserving the court’s discretion to require sworn AI-disclosure statements case by case.

Primary source

DCR 3.125: https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti