N.D. Ohio: Standing Order, Paragraph 8 (Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Charles E. Flemin…
Judge Charles E. Fleming · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order, Paragraph 8 (Artificial Intelligence) (Judge Charles E. Fleming, N.D. Ohio)
- Order date
- June 2025
Summary
'[N]o attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court.'
What does the order require?
- '[N]o 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 filing 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.'
- '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
What the order requires
Paragraph 8 of Judge Charles E. Fleming’s Standing Order (N.D. Ohio), a blank-caption order for entry in cases assigned to Judge Fleming, bans AI in filings. Relying on the Court’s inherent authority and Rule 11, it provides that “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 the ban “may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the filing from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.” The ban does not apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or internet search engines, such as Google. All parties and their counsel must immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.
Versions
The standing order is undated. The AI provision appears, in the same words as paragraph 7, in the version the judge’s page linked by June 2025; the current version, posted in September 2026, renumbers it as paragraph 8.
Related orders
The text closely follows Judge Christopher A. Boyko’s standing order in the same district, which also bans AI in filings with a search-engine carve-out and a duty to report discovered AI use.