N.D. Tex.: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge Davi…
Hon. David L. Horan, U.S. Magistrate Judge · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, N.D. Tex.)
- Order date
- May 15, 2025
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: 'While the Court will not impose obligations as to litigants' using AI beyond those that Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires, all parties are cautioned that relying on AI without verifying the accuracy of the information it generates', like any other shoddy research method, 'implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'
What the instrument provides
- 'While the Court will not impose obligations as to litigants' using AI beyond those that Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires, all parties are cautioned that relying on AI without verifying the accuracy of the information it generates', like any other shoddy research method, 'implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'
- 'Attorneys and self-represented litigants should consult this Standing Order when considering the use of AI in court filings and, for any brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence, must comply with Northern District of Texas Local Civil Rule 7.2(f).'
- The order sets out the text of Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), which requires a brief prepared using generative AI to disclose that on its first page.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the order says
Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of the Northern District of Texas enters a Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence on the docket of cases before him. The earliest copy located is dated May 15, 2025. The order is addressed to “litigators”, “attorneys and pro se parties (that is, unrepresented or self-represented parties) alike.”
It surveys the benefits and risks of AI, including hallucinated citations, and then states its operative position: “while the Court will not impose obligations as to litigants’ using AI beyond those that Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires, all parties are cautioned that relying on AI without verifying the accuracy of the information it generates”, like “any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools”, “implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”
It closes: “attorneys and self-represented litigants should consult this Standing Order when considering the use of AI in court filings and, for any brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence, must comply with Northern District of Texas Local Civil Rule 7.2(f).”
How the tracker treats it
The order is listed as advisory. It restates the district’s Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) disclosure requirement, expressly declines to add to it, and warns of Rule 11 exposure. The binding disclosure duty is the local rule’s.