S.D.N.Y.: Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Section VII, and in Pro Se Cases, Section…
Judge Analisa Torres · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Section VII, and in Pro Se Cases, Section VI (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Analisa Torres, S.D.N.Y.)
- Order date
- November 5, 2025
Summary
'Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, all parties and counsel are reminded of their obligation to provide the Court with accurate and complete representations in any pleading, written motion, or other paper submitted to the Court.'
What does the order require?
- 'Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, all parties and counsel are reminded of their obligation to provide the Court with accurate and complete representations in any pleading, written motion, or other paper submitted to the Court.'
- 'If a submission is prepared using generative artificial intelligence (for example, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard), the submitting party and counsel must confirm for themselves that the submission, and all source material within, is accurate and in compliance with the obligations of Rule 11.'
- 'At all times, the submitting party and their counsel bear responsibility to ensure the accuracy of any submission made to the Court. Failure to uphold this responsibility may result in sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action.'
- No disclosure of AI use is required. The same text appears in the Civil and the Pro Se practices, both revised November 5, 2025.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the practices require
Judge Analisa Torres’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases (S.D.N.Y., rev. Nov. 5, 2025), Section VII, and Individual Practices in Pro Se Cases (S.D.N.Y., rev. Nov. 5, 2025), Section VI, contain the same section on “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” It reminds all parties and counsel of their Rule 11 obligation to make accurate and complete representations in any paper submitted to the Court.
If a submission is prepared using generative AI (“for example, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard”), the submitting party and counsel “must confirm for themselves that the submission, and all source material within, is accurate and in compliance with the obligations of Rule 11.” The submitting party and counsel bear responsibility for the accuracy of every submission, and failure to uphold that responsibility “may result in sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action.”
The section requires no disclosure of AI use and prescribes no certification.
Quotable language
“If a submission is prepared using generative artificial intelligence (for example, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard), the submitting party and counsel must confirm for themselves that the submission, and all source material within, is accurate and in compliance with the obligations of Rule 11.”