KS 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County): Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125: Plea…
Court · Third Judicial District of Kansas, Shawnee County District Court
Verified April 30, 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?
- 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.'
- Filers must 'disclose to the Court and opposing parties at time of filing, in writing and clearly marked on the first page' that the document contains AI-generated content.
- The disclosure must include 'a certification that it was checked for accuracy.'
- The rule's stated rationale: 'AI systems may not be factually or legally trustworthy sources of information without human verification.'
- 'Violation of this rule may subject attorneys and pro se litigants to sanctions.'
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate
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 Topeka and the rest of Kansas’s Third Judicial District.
- 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.
- 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.
- Accuracy certification. The disclosure must include a certification that the AI-generated content was checked for accuracy.
- Both attorneys and pro se litigants. The rule names both populations and exposes both to sanctions.
- 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. No statewide Kansas Supreme Court rule imposes equivalent disclosure as of April 2026, though the Kansas Supreme Court Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee, created by Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 (Feb. 27, 2025), is studying statewide AI policy.
Practitioner workflow
For Shawnee County matters, the disclosure block belongs on page one. A workable form: a single-paragraph notice naming the generative AI tool used, identifying the portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, and certifying that all AI-generated content has been independently verified using print reporters or established legal databases. Firms filing in multiple Kansas districts should check local rules in each district before filing; other Kansas judicial districts may have adopted similar local rules.
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