N.D. Ohio: Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Bo…
Judge Christopher A. Boyko · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Verified April 27, 2026
- Citation
- Court's Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Boyko)
- Order date
- December 19, 2023
Summary
No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.
What does the order require?
- No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.
- Violators may face sanctions including striking the pleading from the record, imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.
- The AI ban does not apply to information gathered from legal search engines such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines such as Google or Bing.
- All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the order requires
Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Northern District of Ohio issued a standing order banning AI in all filings before his chambers. The order is one of the strictest in the federal system. The operative text reads in full:
Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and the authority of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.
How this differs from disclosure-style orders
Most federal AI standing orders permit AI use subject to disclosure and verification (see, e.g., the Baylson order in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the Kobayashi guidelines in the District of Hawaii). Boyko’s order is a categorical ban on AI in filings, with carve-outs only for traditional legal research platforms and standard internet search. It also imposes an affirmative duty to report opposing-party AI use to the Court.
Scope
The order applies to all filings in cases assigned to Judge Boyko. It is not a district-wide N.D. Ohio order.
Practitioner workflow
For Boyko matters, AI assistance must be excluded from the drafting workflow entirely. Firms using generative AI tools in their general drafting pipeline (including AI features added to Westlaw and Lexis post-2023) should treat the carve-out language conservatively: the order names “legal search engines” and “Internet search engines,” not generative drafting features now embedded in those platforms. The reporting duty also creates an obligation to flag suspected opposing-counsel AI use, which is unusual.
Primary source
Order PDF: https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf