E.D. Va.: Standing Order: In re Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence (Chief…
Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief U.S. District Judge · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order: In re Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck, E.D. Va.)
- Order date
- September 1, 2026
Summary
'This Standing Order applies to all civil cases that are assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.'
What does the order require?
- 'This Standing Order applies to all civil cases that are assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.'
- 'Should any party utilize generative artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court, they must identify the use of the generative artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.'
- The same order separately provides that Local Civil Rule 7(E) (deemed withdrawal of a motion filed without a hearing request or waiver) 'shall not apply'; the Court will schedule a hearing 'only if it determines one to be necessary after review of the briefs.'
Practice areas: federal civil
What the order requires
Chief Judge Lauck’s standing order, entered September 1, 2026, covers “all civil cases that are assigned to” her. Its AI paragraph is one sentence:
“Should any party utilize generative artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court, they must identify the use of the generative artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.”
That sentence carries two duties, both triggered only by generative AI use:
- Identification. The filing itself must identify that generative AI was used. The order does not prescribe wording or ask which portions or which tool.
- Citation certification. The filer certifies review of “all citations for accuracy.” The duty is framed around citations, not the filing’s factual content generally.
A filing prepared without generative AI carries no AI statement.
What it does not say
The order names no consequence for non-compliance and supplies no model certification. It is limited to civil cases; criminal matters before Chief Judge Lauck are outside its terms.
Before the standing order
Judge Lauck addressed AI in individual cases before adopting the standing order. Her initial pretrial orders in 2024 carried a separate, case-specific “Use of Artificial Intelligence” paragraph directing any party that uses artificial intelligence to prepare a filing to identify that use in the filing and certify that all citations were reviewed for accuracy; see, for example, Link v. Equifax, No. 3:24-cv-328, ECF 29 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 28, 2024). Those orders bound only the cases in which they were entered. The standing order is a separate instrument that applies to all of her civil cases and is framed around generative AI.
The other half of the order
The same standing order suspends Local Civil Rule 7(E) in Chief Judge Lauck’s civil cases: “No motion will be deemed withdrawn purely based on the absence of a motion requesting a hearing or, in the alternative, a formal waiver of hearing.” Hearings are scheduled only where the court finds one necessary.
Primary source
In re: Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence, Standing Order (Sept. 1, 2026) (PDF)