WA SB 6073: Use of artificial intelligence language learning models in official court filings

Operative sections

• New RCW 2.48 section (1): parties, attorneys, and pro se parties using generative AI for legal research or drafting court filings must disclose it.
• New RCW 2.48 section (1)(a): disclosure must name the specific AI tool and describe how it was used.
• New RCW 2.48 section (1)(b): filers must certify that every law or record citation was verified as accurate.

Text

Any party, including an attorney for a party or a pro se party, using any generative artificial intelligence language learning model tool to conduct legal research or to draft documents for filing with a Washington court must: (a) Disclose in the filing that artificial intelligence was used, with the disclosure including the specific artificial intelligence tool and the manner in which it was used; and (b) Certify that each and every citation to the law or the record in the document has been verified as accurate.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Washington

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Decisions on the record

• LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 2026-08-18

  The Western District of Washington grants summary judgment for Outliers and addresses AI-generated citation tables used in expert materials. The court recounts sanctions against counsel, finds Dr. Holguin’s hallucinated citations undermine his report’s reliability, and excludes that expert opinion under Rule 702 and Daubert.

• In re Marriage of Muriel and FarrisCourt of Appeals of Washington, Division Two · 2026-08-18

  The Washington Court of Appeals affirms a parenting plan and awards Rebekah Muriel fees for responding to Jonathan Farris’s response brief. The court says the brief twice cited nonexistent Marriage of Sanjuan, surmises AI-assisted drafting, deems the filing frivolous, and sets the fee amount for the commissioner.

• LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 2026-07-24

  The Western District of Washington sanctions Jocelyn Stewart in the LeDoux litigation. The order finds Stewart used ChatGPT and Claude without verifying outputs, causing dozens of false citations across briefs and expert reports, and imposes a $3,000 personal sanction plus future citation certifications.

• Fadi El Bitar v. Julio HernandezUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 2026-06-02

  On 2026-06-02, in Fadi El Bitar v. Julio Hernandez, the Western District of Washington imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction for the defective legal authorities. Counsel filed a petition using quotations that did not appear in the cited source. The monetary component was $1,000.

• Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupWashington Court of Appeals · 2026-04-20

  The Washington Court of Appeals on 2026-04-20 admonished the self-represented party for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct in Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. The self-represented party filed a brief with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.