Regulation Tracker
AI rules for legal practice in the US federal courts
As of 2026-09-04, 11 official documents govern AI use by lawyers, judges or litigants in the US federal courts. 7 require disclosure or certification of AI use, 10 impose an explicit verification duty, and 0 prohibit some use outright. The incident tracker records 36 incidents in this jurisdiction.
United States category map →
US Judicial Conference
A proposed United States federal evidence rule that would subject machine-generated evidence, including AI output offered without an expert, to the reliability standards of Rule 702. Public comment closed 16 February 2026. In June 2026 the Standing Committee declined to recommend adoption and returned the rule for further study alongside deepfakes; the earliest effective date is after 1 December 2027.
Court rule · Verification duty
2026-06-04Proposed
M.D. Fla. (Berger)Florida
A standing order issued 2 April 2026 by Judge Wendy Berger of the Middle District of Florida governing AI-assisted filings. Counsel and self-represented parties are responsible for the accuracy of any AI-generated content; misrepresenting its accuracy can lead to sanctions up to dismissal or default judgment and referral to the state bar or the court's grievance committee.
Standing order · Verification duty · Certification
2026-04-02In force
S.D. Ohio (Graham)Ohio
A standing order issued 21 October 2025 by Judge James Graham of the Southern District of Ohio. Any filing prepared with generative AI must be accompanied by a declaration disclosing that AI was used, identifying the platform, describing which content was AI-generated, and confirming that a human verified every citation and factual assertion before filing.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-21In force
DOJ EOIR
Signed by Acting Director Sirce E. Owen and effective 8 August 2025, this is the first Department of Justice component policy on generative AI binding practitioners. EOIR imposes neither a blanket prohibition nor mandatory disclosure, but treats hallucinated or erroneous AI content as a likely professional-conduct violation and directs adjudicators to refer suspected misuse for discipline.
Policy · Permissive · Verification duty · Competence
2025-08-08In force
AO of the US Courts
Interim guidance developed by the Administrative Office's AI Task Force and distributed across the United States federal judiciary on 31 July 2025. It permits experimentation with AI while directing users to independently verify all AI-generated output, cautioning against delegating core judicial functions, and asking each court to define locally approved tools and tasks. The text itself is not published.
Guidance · Verification duty · Disclosure · Confidentiality · Supervision
2025-07-31In force
ABA
The American Bar Association's first formal ethics opinion on generative AI, issued 29 July 2024, applies the Model Rules to lawyers across the United States. It covers competence, confidentiality with informed client consent for self-learning tools, candor to tribunals, supervision of staff and vendors, and fees. It is permissive with cautions and has no successor opinion.
Ethics opinion · Competence · Confidentiality · Client consent · Verification duty · Supervision
2024-07-29In force
Fifth Circuit
In late 2023 the Fifth Circuit proposed requiring every filer to certify either that no generative AI was used or that all AI-generated text had been reviewed by a human. After public comment the court announced in June 2024 that it would not adopt the rule, relying on existing Rule 11 and candor obligations. No AI-specific rule applies.
Court rule · Certification
2024-06-01Withdrawn
USPTO
Guidance published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on 11 April 2024 reminding practitioners that existing signature, candor and confidentiality duties apply when AI tools are used to prepare filings. Practitioners must review AI-assisted documents before submission, must not disclose client information to tools without safeguards, and remain responsible for accuracy.
Guidance · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Competence
2024-04-11In force
E.D. Pa. (Baylson)Pennsylvania
A standing order issued 6 June 2023 by Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Any attorney or self-represented party who used generative AI in preparing a filing must disclose that use in a clear statement and certify that every citation to law or the record has been verified as accurate. It applies to all his cases.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2023-06-06In force
N.D. Ill. (Fuentes)Illinois
A standing order for civil cases before Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes of the Northern District of Illinois, revised 31 May 2023 to address generative AI. Any party using a generative AI tool to prepare or draft a filing must disclose that use and identify the tool, and Rule 11 verification obligations apply in full to the resulting content.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2023-05-31In force
N.D. Tex. (Starr)Texas
The first judge-specific generative AI order in the United States federal courts, issued by Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas on 30 May 2023. Every attorney and self-represented litigant must certify either that no generative AI was used or that any AI-generated content was checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional databases.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2023-05-30In force
Descriptive reference only: this page records what each rule requires. Missing a document? Tell us.