What does Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.)'s AI court order require?

'Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel or the self-represented party must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel or the self-represented party alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.' 'The signature or listing of counsel or a self-represented party on a filing containing AI-generated content, including citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification the signer (and any attorney or other self-represented party listed on the filing) has personally verified the content's accuracy.'

Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

No affirmative disclosure of AI use is required. The order does require that AI-generated content (citations, quotations, factual assertions) be independently verified for accuracy before filing; the key requirements above state how the order frames that duty and whether any certification accompanies it.

What are the consequences for attorneys who violate this order?

This order provides for consequences imposed on counsel personally for noncompliance. The specific remedies it authorises are set out in the requirements listed on this page; they vary by order and are applied at the court's discretion.

Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.): Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence…

Hon. Kimberly A. Knill · Orange County Superior Court, Department C31

amended

Verified September 30, 2026

Citation: Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (Hon. Kimberly A. Knill)
Order date: January 25, 2024

Summary

'Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel or the self-represented party must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel or the self-represented party alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.'

What does the order require?

'Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel or the self-represented party must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel or the self-represented party alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.'
'The signature or listing of counsel or a self-represented party on a filing containing AI-generated content, including citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification the signer (and any attorney or other self-represented party listed on the filing) has personally verified the content's accuracy.'
'The court will impute any errors by such AI tools to the signer and any other attorney or self-represented party listed on the filing.'
Counsel and self-represented parties who choose to use generative AI or other automated tools 'shall fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations in their use, disclosure to, submission to, or other interaction with any such AI tools.'
'Failure to verify the accuracy of submissions, particularly the accuracy of citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions or disciplinary action before the State Bar.'
No separate statement disclosing AI use is required. The August 10, 2026 revision removed the January 25, 2024 requirement to 'disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing.'

Practice areas: state civil

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 order requires

Judge Knill’s Department C31 procedures (Orange County Superior Court) include a standing order on artificial intelligence, revised August 10, 2026. It does not prohibit generative AI. Counsel and self-represented parties must personally confirm the accuracy of any research done with it, and they alone bear ethical responsibility for statements in their filings. The signature or listing of counsel or a self-represented party on a filing that contains AI-generated content, including AI-generated citations, is a certification that the signer personally verified the content’s accuracy. The court imputes AI errors to the signer and to anyone else listed on the filing. Failure to verify, particularly citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions or State Bar discipline.

The earlier version of the order (January 25, 2024) also required a clear and plain factual statement disclosing that AI had been used in any way in preparing the filing. The 2026 revision removed that disclosure requirement. The current order names ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, Claude, Grok, and Google Gemini as examples.

Quotable language

“The signature or listing of counsel or a self-represented party on a filing containing AI-generated content, including citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification the signer (and any attorney or other self-represented party listed on the filing) has personally verified the content’s accuracy.”

Former text (January 25, 2024 to August 10, 2026): “If an attorney for a party, or a self-represented party, has used generative AI, including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard, in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court and assigned to Judge Kimberly A. Knill, they MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing and CERTIFY each and every citation to the law, or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.”

Primary source

Department C31 Procedures PDF, revised August 10, 2026, occourts.org; January 25, 2024 version, Internet Archive capture

How this order changed

Dated record of this order's own lifecycle. Where it was amended or withdrawn, the badge shows its standing after that step.

Jan 25, 2024active
Judge Knill's Department C31 procedures add a standing order requiring any attorney or self-represented party who used generative AI in preparing a filing to 'disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing and CERTIFY each and every citation to the law, or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.' source
Aug 10, 2026amended
The procedures are revised ('Revised 8/10/2026'). The standing order drops the disclosure requirement; a signature on a filing containing AI-generated content now certifies that the signer personally verified its accuracy, and the court imputes AI errors to the signer. source

Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.): Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence…

Summary

What does the order require?

What the order requires

Quotable language

Primary source

How this order changed

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders

From the blog