E.D. Mo.: Judge's Requirements, Section 15 (Use of Artificial Intelligence and Rule 11 Sa…
Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, U.S. District Judge · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Judge's Requirements, Section 15 (Use of Artificial Intelligence and Rule 11 Sanctions) (Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, E.D. Mo.)
- Order date
- July 29, 2026
Summary
'By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper', whether 'by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it', 'self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence (AI). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).'
What does the order require?
- 'By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper', whether 'by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it', 'self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence (AI). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).'
- 'Attorneys and self-represented parties alike must exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated material in pleadings before the Court.'
- 'Use of AI without verification of its accuracy, like any other shoddy research method, implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'
- 'Any pleading or form document (AI generated or not) that hallucinates legal citations or propositions or otherwise misstates the law, is not properly reviewed or completed by the filer, or that has not been subjected to an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances pursuant to Rule 11, will result in the imposition of sanctions.'
- The section requires no disclosure or certification of AI use.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the requirement says
Judge Cristian M. Stevens (E.D. Mo.), Judge’s Requirements (July 29, 2026), Section 15. The section, titled “Use of Artificial Intelligence and Rule 11 Sanctions,” opens with the Eastern District’s court-wide notice: by presenting any paper to the Court, “self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence (AI).”
It then goes further than the court notice. Attorneys and self-represented parties “must exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated material,” and “Use of AI without verification of its accuracy, like any other shoddy research method, implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” It puts filers “on notice that any pleading or form document (AI generated or not) that hallucinates legal citations or propositions or otherwise misstates the law, is not properly reviewed or completed by the filer, or that has not been subjected to an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances pursuant to Rule 11, will result in the imposition of sanctions.”
The requirements list the sanctions available for non-compliance with any part of them, including “non-monetary directives, an order to pay a penalty into court, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, striking pleadings, dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, and restrictions on the admissibility of evidence,” citing Local Rule 5.04. No disclosure or certification of AI use is required.
Context
See also the Eastern District’s court-wide AI notice and the Missouri tracker page.
Primary source
Judge Cristian M. Stevens, Judge’s Requirements (Revised July 29, 2026), Section 15