MT 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties): Montana 4th Judicial District C…
Court · Montana 4th Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties)
Verified April 30, 2026
- Citation
- Montana 4th Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties), Local Rule 3(G): Pleading Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Order date
- October 31, 2025
Summary
'Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who uses generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of a pleading or document filed with the court must disclose the use of "generative artificial intelligence": the specific tool the party used; how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document; and that the party certifies they have checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.'
What does the order require?
- 'Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who uses generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of a pleading or document filed with the court must disclose the use of "generative artificial intelligence": the specific tool the party used; how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document; and that the party certifies they have checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.'
- 'The court presumes that a party who files a document that does not contain this certification certifies that no part of the document was prepared using generative artificial intelligence.'
- 'If generative artificial intelligence is used in the preparation of any documents filed with the court, the attorney or pro se litigant will be held responsible for the contents thereof under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and attorney discipline.'
- 'If the court has good reason to suspect that a filing has relied on generative artificial intelligence in violation of this rule, and the party has not reasonably dispelled the court's concerns, such violation may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11, including the possibility of dismissal of the responsible party's case, document, or pleading without prejudice for failure to comply with this standing order.'
- Definition: 'generative artificial intelligence' means 'a computer tool (whether referred to as "generative artificial intelligence" or by another name) that is capable of generating new content (e.g., images, text, etc.) in response to a submitted prompt and/or query by learning from a large reference database of examples. This term also encompasses computer tools that are substantially similar to the computer tools encompassed by the above definition but differ in some unique way.'
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate
What the rule requires
Local Rule 3(G) of the Montana 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties) is the more detailed of Montana’s two district-level AI disclosure rules. It imposes a four-element disclosure, an absence-of-AI presumption, and an explicit Rule 11 sanctions hook.
- Four-element disclosure. When a party uses generative AI in preparing a filed pleading or document, four items must appear in the disclosure:
- that generative artificial intelligence was used;
- the specific tool the party used;
- how the party used the tool in preparing the document; and
- certification that the party has checked the accuracy of any AI-drafted or AI-assisted portion, “including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.”
- Absence-of-AI presumption. Under the rule, “the court presumes that a party who files a document that does not contain this certification certifies that no part of the document was prepared using generative artificial intelligence.” Skipping the certification is itself a representation under the rule, not a neutral omission.
- Responsibility under Rule 11 and professional conduct rules. The attorney or pro se litigant is responsible for contents “under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and attorney discipline.”
- Sanctions framework. Per the rule, “if the court has good reason to suspect that a filing has relied on generative artificial intelligence in violation of this rule, and the party has not reasonably dispelled the court’s concerns, such violation may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11, including the possibility of dismissal of the responsible party’s case, document, or pleading without prejudice.”
- Definition explicitly broad. Generative AI is defined as a computer tool that generates new content in response to a prompt by learning from a large reference database. The definition expressly reaches tools “substantially similar… but differ in some unique way.” Its breadth is intended to forestall hair-splitting about whether a particular tool is or is not “generative AI.”
Context
The February 2026 Missoula public defender incident illustrated how the rule operates in practice. A criminal defense motion was filed without the Rule 3(G) certification but contained text that read like a generative AI prompt response (“Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence…’”). On February 17, 2026, the county attorney moved to strike, citing Rule 3(G) noncompliance. The defending attorney moved to strike her own filing and refiled. Two features of the incident map directly to the rule’s design. First, the absence-of-AI presumption was implicitly violated: the unsigned representation that no AI was used was contradicted by the document’s text. Second, Rule 11 was the operative sanctions pathway.
Practitioner workflow
For 4th Judicial District matters, AI disclosure when applicable should appear on the face of the filing. It must include all four elements: that generative AI was used, the specific tool, the manner of use, and the accuracy certification reaching factual background, procedural background, citations, and legal authority. Firms practicing in both Missoula and Billings can adopt a single disclosure block satisfying the more detailed Rule 3(G) format; that block automatically satisfies 13th Judicial District Rule 35.
At intake, the absence-of-AI presumption deserves attention. Under the rule, filing a document without the certification is an affirmative representation that no part of the document was AI-prepared. A firm whose drafting workflow uses AI even for early-stage research or outlining should treat that as a Rule 3(G) trigger and disclose conservatively rather than rely on the absence-of-AI presumption.
Scope
Missoula and Mineral Counties only (Montana 4th Judicial District). No statewide rule has been adopted by the Montana Supreme Court. For federal Montana matters, see Judge Molloy’s pro hac vice condition (D. Mont., June 22, 2023). It prohibits use of AI drafting tools by out-of-state counsel admitted before him.
Primary source
4th Judicial District Local Rules (PDF, see Rule 3(G) at page 7): https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf