N.D. Tex.: Judge Specific Requirements, Artificial Intelligence (Senior District Judge Ja…
Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Judge Specific Requirements, Artificial Intelligence (Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle, N.D. Tex.)
- Order date
- September 1, 2026
Summary
'No text generated by artificial intelligence may be used in any portion of any pleading, motion, brief, or other filing made by an attorney before Judge Boyle.'
What does the order require?
- 'No text generated by artificial intelligence may be used in any portion of any pleading, motion, brief, or other filing made by an attorney before Judge Boyle.'
- 'All language in attorney-signed filings must be drafted by a human attorney and checked for accuracy by a human attorney.'
- 'Using artificial intelligence to identify errors in documents is acceptable but must be disclosed under Local Rule 7.2(f), and any resulting edit must be made and verified by a human attorney.'
- 'Any filing made in a case in which Judge Boyle is presiding must include a signed certificate stating that the text was generated in its entirety by a human attorney'; 'failure to include such certificate may result in the filing being stricken.'
- 'Parties proceeding pro se are equally responsible for compliance with this requirement.' 'Failure to comply may result in litigation sanctions and/or Rule 11 sanctions.'
- The requirement is marked 'Effective 9/1/26' on the judge's page.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the requirement says
Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle’s Judge Specific Requirements page on the Northern District of Texas website carries an “Artificial Intelligence” requirement marked “Effective 9/1/26.” It is a use restriction, not a disclosure regime: “No text generated by artificial intelligence may be used in any portion of any pleading, motion, brief, or other filing made by an attorney before Judge Boyle.”
The requirement continues: “All language in attorney-signed filings must be drafted by a human attorney and checked for accuracy by a human attorney. Using artificial intelligence to identify errors in documents is acceptable but must be disclosed under Local Rule 7.2(f), and any resulting edit must be made and verified by a human attorney.”
The certificate
“Any filing made in a case in which Judge Boyle is presiding must include a signed certificate stating that the text was generated in its entirety by a human attorney.” The page adds that “failure to include such certificate may result in the filing being stricken.”
“Parties proceeding pro se are equally responsible for compliance with this requirement. Failure to comply may result in litigation sanctions and/or Rule 11 sanctions.”
How it sits with the district rule
The district-wide Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires a brief prepared using generative AI to disclose that fact under a first-page heading. Judge Boyle’s requirement goes further: it bars AI-generated text in attorney filings altogether, expressly permits using AI to identify errors in documents, and routes that permitted use through the Rule 7.2(f) disclosure. The requirement does not address other uses of AI that put no AI-generated text into a filing. Firms with matters before Judge Boyle may wish to confirm that drafting workflows and brief templates reflect both the prohibition and the human-authorship certificate.
Primary source
Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle, Judge Specific Requirements (N.D. Tex.)