S.D. Ohio: Standing Civil/Criminal Orders Re Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Newman)
Judge Michael J. Newman · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Verified April 27, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Civil/Criminal Orders Re Use of AI (Cases Assigned to Judge Newman)
- Order date
- August 27, 2025
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, economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.
- The AI ban does not apply to legal search engines (Westlaw, LexisNexis), Internet search engines (Google, Bing), or Microsoft Suite products and equivalents (such as Word).
- All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court of suspected AI use in any document filed in their case or an opponent's case.
- The stated purpose is to prevent counsel and pro se parties from citing false, misleading, or hallucinated cases and law, not to prevent use of legitimate AI-assisted tools.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the order requires
Judge Michael J. Newman of the Southern District of Ohio embeds the AI ban as Section VI of his standing civil and criminal orders, both effective August 27, 2025. The operative text reads:
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, Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing, or Microsoft Suite products or the equivalent, such as Word. 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 or an opponent’s case. The purpose of this provision is not to prevent parties from using AI tools, such as legal search engines or Microsoft Suite products but, rather, to prevent counsel and pro se parties from citing false, misleading and/or hallucinated cases and law.
Refinements over the Boyko model
Newman’s order tracks the Northern District of Ohio Boyko order closely but adds two refinements: (1) it explicitly carves out Microsoft Office and equivalent productivity software, addressing ambiguity introduced by Microsoft 365 Copilot; and (2) it states the purpose of the rule, anchoring future enforcement to hallucination risk rather than AI use as such. Both refinements reduce the practical surprise of the ban while keeping its core prohibition intact.
Scope
The order applies to all filings in civil and criminal matters assigned to Judge Newman. There is no S.D. Ohio district-wide AI order; check chambers rules judge-by-judge.
Primary source
Civil order: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf
Criminal order: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf
Chambers landing: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/FPNewman