W.D.N.C.: W.D.N.C. Standing Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence
Chief Judge Martin Reidinger · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- W.D.N.C. Standing Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence
- Order date
- June 18, 2024
Status and former requirement
No longer in force (superseded); this order does not state current filing practice. While it was operative it required: Every brief or memorandum had to include a certification stating that no artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of the document, with the exception of AI embedded in the standard online legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg.
What the order required while in force
- Every brief or memorandum had to include a certification stating that no artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of the document, with the exception of AI embedded in the standard online legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg.
- The certification also had to state that every statement and every citation to authority had been checked by an attorney in the case and/or a paralegal working at the attorney's direction (or by the party making the filing if acting pro se) as to the accuracy of the proposition for which it is offered and the citation to authority provided.
- Applied to all attorneys and pro se filers, with any brief or memorandum submitted to the Court.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
No longer in force
This order was superseded on July 29, 2026. The district’s 2026 order on the use of AI, entered in the same miscellaneous docket, provides that “the filing of a separate certificate regarding the use of AI is no longer required.” W.D.N.C. filings are now governed by that order, under which filing any document is a deemed certification that authorities exist and are accurately cited and that quotations are verbatim.
The court’s general-orders page still lists this 2024 order as “AI Standing Order.” That listing is out of date.
What the order required
The Western District of North Carolina’s Standing Order, In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (Docket No. 3:24-mc-104), was entered on June 18, 2024 and signed by all seven W.D.N.C. district and senior district judges: Chief Judge Martin Reidinger, Judges Frank D. Whitney, Max O. Cogburn Jr., and Kenneth D. Bell, and Senior Judges Robert J. Conrad Jr., Graham C. Mullen, and Richard L. Voorhees. It applied to every brief or memorandum filed in the district, which had to include a certification with two parts:
- No artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of this document, with the exception of such artificial intelligence embedded in the standard on-line legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg;
- Every statement and every citation to an authority contained in this document has been checked by an attorney in this case and/or a paralegal working at his/her direction (or the party making the filing if acting pro se) as to the accuracy of the proposition for which it is offered, and the citation to authority provided.
The certification requirement applied to “all attorneys and pro se filers.” The preamble explained the court’s concern: “Briefs and memoranda prepared using artificial intelligence (AI) platforms (e.g. ChatGPT) have increased the Court’s concern regarding the reliability and accuracy of filings. … There have been several reports around the country regarding courts receiving briefs containing fictitious case cites and unsupported arguments that have been generated by AI sources. This order is intended to mitigate these concerns with the following requirements.”
The carve-out
The order exempted AI embedded in four legal-research platforms: Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg. Its text never addressed the generative drafting features later added to those platforms, which left the scope of the carve-out uncertain for as long as the order was in force. The 2026 order removes the question: it permits AI use in research and drafting outright and attaches the duty to the accuracy of what is filed.
Why the history still matters
Briefs and memoranda filed between June 18, 2024 and July 29, 2026 were subject to this certificate requirement, so a dispute over a filing from that period will be judged against it.
Primary source
W.D.N.C. court announcement: https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/news/standing-order-re-use-artificial-intelligence
Superseding order: In re: Use of Artificial Intelligence, No. 3:24-mc-104, Doc. 2 (W.D.N.C. July 29, 2026) (PDF)
How this order changed
Dated record of this order's own lifecycle. Where it was amended or withdrawn, the badge shows its standing after that step.
- activeEntered as No. 3:24-mc-104, signed by all seven W.D.N.C. district and senior district judges, requiring the two-part AI certification with every brief or memorandum. source
- supersededSuperseded by the district's order in the same docket (Doc. 2), which provides that 'the filing of a separate certificate regarding the use of AI is no longer required' and replaces it with a deemed certification attached to every filing. source
Sanctions cases decided under this order
Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.
- Smith v. Polk County , Aug 2026
- Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al. , Jun 2026