October 18, 2026 (in 16 days): Tenth Circuit: comments close on 2027 rules, incl. proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) generative-AI review →

Oklahoma (statewide): In re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, No. SCAD-2026-17, 2026 O…

Per the Court in conference (signed by the Chief Justice; all justices concur) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma

active

Verified September 28, 2026

Citation
In re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, No. SCAD-2026-17, 2026 OK 19
Order date
March 23, 2026

Status and scope

No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: 'The Supreme Court does not discourage the use of AI in Oklahoma courts, provided its use complies with legal and ethical standards.'

No AI-specific filing obligation. This instrument is in force but imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules; where it restates duties that already apply (Rule 11, professional conduct rules), those duties remain binding. It is listed so firms can see the court's stated expectations; the items below are not AI-specific filing obligations.

What the instrument provides

Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate

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 says

On March 23, 2026 the Supreme Court of Oklahoma entered a four-sentence administrative order, “Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence,” No. SCAD-2026-17, published as 2026 OK 19:

“The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in Oklahoma courts is expected.

The Supreme Court does not discourage the use of AI in Oklahoma courts, provided its use complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing. All persons filing documents in Oklahoma courts are responsible for the content and accuracy of the documents.”

All justices concurred.

What it means for filers

The order does two things. It sets the statewide position that AI use need not be disclosed: “Disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing.” The order does not address whether it displaces a disclosure requirement an individual judge imposes in a particular case or by standing order. And it places responsibility for accuracy on everyone who files, attorneys and self-represented parties alike, whatever tools they used.

The last sentence carries weight in lawyer discipline. In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (May 27, 2026), the Court publicly reprimanded a lawyer who had added ChatGPT-generated citations to federal filings without checking them. Quoting this order, it held that “a lawyer has a duty to verify and ensure the accuracy of the pleadings his name is on,” and that “If a lawyer knowingly uses AI to generate citations or analysis for a pleading and knowingly does not verify the accuracy before including it in the pleading, then the lawyer has knowingly made a false statement.”

So the order removes a paperwork requirement without lowering the standard: no AI disclosure, but full responsibility for what is filed. For lawyers, Reeves shows that responsibility being enforced through the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Scope

Oklahoma state courts. Federal courts sitting in Oklahoma set their own rules; see, for example, the W.D. Okla. Judge Palk guidelines and the E.D. Okla. Judge Robertson candor and accuracy rules.

Primary sources

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.

  1. active
    The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, all justices concurring, enters the administrative order in No. SCAD-2026-17, published as 2026 OK 19.

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders