N.D. Tex. (Amarillo Division): Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial In…
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk)
- Order date
- November 27, 2023
Summary
Attorneys and pro se litigants must file a certificate together with their notice of appearance attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language (including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis) will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being.
What does the order require?
- Attorneys and pro se litigants must file a certificate together with their notice of appearance attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language (including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis) will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being.
- The Court will strike any filing from parties who fail to comply with the certification requirement.
- Any attorney who signs any filing in the case will be held responsible for the contents thereof according to applicable rules of attorney discipline, regardless of whether generative AI drafted any portion of that filing.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the certification requires
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (N.D. Tex., Amarillo Division) requires every attorney and pro se litigant in his cases to file a generative-AI certificate together with their notice of appearance. The certification must state one of two things:
- No portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence; or
- Any language drafted by generative AI, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis, will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being.
The certification is on a court-provided template (KacsmarykAICert.doc) hosted on the chambers page. Failure to file the certification is a basis for the Court to strike the filing.
The accountability provision is unambiguous: any attorney who signs any filing in the case is held responsible for the contents thereof under applicable rules of attorney discipline, regardless of whether generative AI drafted any portion. The court treats AI-drafted content the same way it treats paralegal-drafted content for sanctions purposes.
How this differs from other chambers AI orders
Judge Kacsmaryk’s certification is structured as a one-time, per-case filing tied to the notice of appearance, rather than an ongoing per-pleading obligation. This makes it administratively simpler for routine matters but front-loads counsel’s attestation: at the start of the case, counsel must commit to either non-use or human verification.
The rationale stated on the chambers page emphasizes that generative AI platforms are “prone to hallucinations and bias” and lack the oath-bound duty to uphold law that attorneys undertake. The order is one of the early-wave 2023 federal AI standing orders that responded to Mata v. Avianca and similar cases.
Relationship to N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f)
N.D. Tex. adopted court-wide Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) effective September 2, 2025 (see txnd-local-civil-rule-7-2-f.md), requiring first-page disclosure of generative AI in briefs. Judge Kacsmaryk’s chambers-specific certification predates the district-wide rule and serves a different function: Rule 7.2(f) is a per-brief disclosure; the Kacsmaryk certification is a one-time per-case attestation tied to the notice of appearance. Practitioners with Kacsmaryk matters should comply with both.
Primary source
Chambers page: https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk
Certification template: https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/KacsmarykAICert.doc