W.D.N.C.: W.D.N.C. Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (No. 3:24-mc-104, Doc. 2)

What the order requires

On July 29, 2026 the judges of the Western District of North Carolina replaced the district’s 2024 AI certificate with a different mechanism. The order starts from permission: “Attorneys and pro se parties may employ AI or other technological assistance for conducting legal research or drafting pleadings and briefs.” It then attaches a deemed certification to every document filed, whether or not AI was used. By filing, an attorney or pro se party certifies that:

• “All factual contentions have evidentiary support;”
• “All legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for its extension, modification, or reversal;”
• “All authorities cited actually exist, are accurately cited, and are accurately represented; and”
• “All quotations from evidence or authorities are verbatim accurate, except as specifically disclosed.”

The first two track Rule 11(b). The last two are the AI-era additions: existence and accurate representation of authorities, and verbatim quotations.

The order is explicit that this is not advisory. Its requirements “are not mere suggestions. They are imperatives that arise from the application of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in civil cases and the duty of candor in both criminal and civil cases.”

Human verification

“Regardless of the method of preparation, the person filing any document with the Court bears the full responsibility for its contents. This requires human verification of all of the above, either by the signatory, or an attorney of record working under the supervision of the signatory.” A pro se signer is “personally and solely responsible for such verification.”

The 2024 order allowed the check to be done by “a paralegal working at his/her direction.” The 2026 text names only the signatory or a supervised attorney of record.

Evidence and discovery

Paragraph 4 extends the duty beyond filings to evidence. Transcripts, summaries, analyses, expert reports, demonstrative exhibits, photographs, and audio or video recordings “can contain hallucinated or fictitious content if AI was involved in some respect in the process of generating or editing the item,” and the party offering such an item, at trial or earlier, “is responsible for validating the accuracy and authenticity of such items. This also extends to discovery responses, even if they are not submitted to the Court.” The order singles out expert reports that will be served or whose author is expected to testify.

Competence and sanctions

Anyone using AI in a case in the district “has a duty to maintain technological competence regarding the use of such AI, including understanding its benefits, limitations, risks of hallucinations or errors, and confidentiality implications,” and should be aware that “Public AI Tools” and “Large Language Models” present particular risks.

For a violation or a false certification, the Court “may impose appropriate sanctions.” Whether an inaccuracy was intentional or not, isolated or repeated, “may bear on the appropriate remedy,” and remedies are “tailored to prejudice, culpability, and materiality of the violation.” The listed sanctions run from striking the filing and a show-cause order through monetary sanctions, dismissing an action or striking an answer, and referral to disciplinary authorities, to “Barring an attorney from practice in the Western District of North Carolina for a certain period.”

What changed from 2024

The 2024 standing order required a separate certificate with every brief or memorandum, stating that no AI had been used in research outside the tools embedded in Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg. Paragraph 7 of this order supersedes it: “the filing of a separate certificate regarding the use of AI is no longer required.” The research-tool carve-out, and the ambiguity over generative features inside those platforms, fall away with it. AI use in research or drafting is now permitted outright, and the obligation attaches to the accuracy of what is filed.

The clerk is directed to mail a copy of the order to each pro se party on that party’s first filing in a case.

Primary source

In re: Use of Artificial Intelligence, No. 3:24-mc-104, Doc. 2 (W.D.N.C. July 29, 2026) (PDF)