As of 2026-10-07, 124 official documents govern AI use by lawyers, judges or litigants in the US federal courts. 86 require disclosure or certification of AI use, 64 impose an explicit verification duty, and 3 prohibit some use outright. The incident tracker records 53 incidents in this jurisdiction.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit proposed amending Rule 32.3 and Form 6 to add a generative-AI certification for appellate filings. The proposal would have required counsel and unrepresented filers to certify either no GenAI drafting or human review and approval of all generated text, including citations and legal analysis.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06Withdrawn
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
After public comment, the Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt its proposed AI certification rule. The notice leaves no special AI disclosure or certification requirement in effect, but expressly warns parties and counsel that existing appellate duties require careful checking for truthfulness and accuracy.
Guidance · Permissive
2026-09-06In force
Central District of CaliforniaCalifornia
The Central District of California Bankruptcy Court’s AI tools notice warns filers that AI-generated court documents may contain fabricated citations, misstatements, or unsupported facts. It advises line-by-line review and verification before filing, and warns that inaccurate or fabricated content may produce sanctions or denial of relief.
Guidance · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Court)California
Judge Michelle Williams Court’s Central District of California civil standing order requires every motion, pleading, or paper to include a declaration about AI use or non-use. If AI drafted any portion, the filer must verify the content, identify AI-generated portions, and faces sanctions or striking for noncompliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Kato)California
Judge Kenly Kiya Kato’s Central District of California civil standing order requires a separate declaration when a party uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing. The declaration must disclose AI use and certify accuracy; noncompliance or inaccurate sources triggers stated monetary sanctions.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Oliver)California
Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Central District of California procedures page requires a separate declaration when a party uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing. The declaration must disclose AI use and certify review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Park)California
Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park’s Central District of California procedures page includes an Artificial Intelligence paragraph reminding counsel and parties of Rule 11 obligations and the representations made by signing a court filing. The text does not add an AI-specific disclosure, verification, or certification requirement.
Standing order · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Roberts)California
Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts’s Central District of California notice is titled Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings. It reminds counsel and parties of Rule 11 obligations and representations made by signing filings, but it does not state a separate AI-use disclosure or certification requirement.
Standing order · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Sagar)California
Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar’s official Central District of California notice requires any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration. The declaration discloses AI use and certifies source-material review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Scott)California
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott’s Central District of California procedures warn that AI tools used to draft briefs may hallucinate authorities. Under Rule 11, anyone signing a filing created in whole or part with AI certifies to the court that cited legal authorities were checked and verified.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Spaeth)California
Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth’s Central District of California notice requires a separate declaration when generative AI is used to generate any portion of a filing. The filer must disclose AI use and certify review of source material, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Viramontes)California
Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes’s Central District of California notice requires a separate declaration for generative-AI-assisted filings. The declaration must disclose use and certify review and accuracy; noncompliance or nonexistent or inaccurate sources leads to stated monetary sanctions. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge Walter)California
Judge John F. Walter’s Central District of California procedures page contains an Order Re: Artificial Intelligence. Attorneys and pro se parties who used generative AI preparing filed documents must disclose that use and certify personal verification of citations, quotations, facts, and analysis; missing certification results in striking.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Central District of California (Judge II)California
Judge Otis D. Wright II’s Central District of California procedures require briefs to include a certificate addressing generative AI. The certificate discloses use or non-use, and when AI was used, states that the filer reviewed, revised, supplemented, and independently verified factual and legal accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of CaliforniaCalifornia
The Northern District of California’s pro se notice permits AI tools for case preparation but warns that filers remain responsible under Rule 11 for everything submitted. It advises self-represented litigants to verify citations, check judge-specific disclosure requirements, and avoid exposing confidential information.
Guidance · Permissive
2026-09-06In force
District of Colorado (Judge Braswell)Colorado
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell’s District of Colorado guidance discusses responsible AI use and hallucinations in court submissions. It expressly states that it is not an order and does not create new requirements, but suggests conferral, court notice, and factors for addressing hallucinations.
Practice direction / note · Competence
2026-09-06In force
District of Colorado (Judge Wang)Colorado
Judge Nina Y. Wang’s District of Colorado standing order requires every filing to include an AI certification signed by all drafting contributors. The certification states whether generative AI was used and, if so, confirms human review for accuracy and that all legal citations are real.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
District of Hawaii (Judge Kobayashi)Hawaii
Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi’s District of Hawaii generative AI standing order requires parties using generative AI to prepare documents filed with the court to disclose that use and the specific tool in the document. The filer must certify accuracy review, including citations and legal authority, and remains responsible under Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Southern District of IowaIowa
The Southern District of Iowa AI notice permits litigants to use AI to assist legal proceedings but strongly encourages caution. It states that litigants are personally responsible for verifying AI-generated quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis before submission, and says the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings.
Guidance · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of Illinois (Judge Coleman)Illinois
Judge Coleman’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page addresses counsel and unrepresented parties using AI in connection with pleadings, motions, or memoranda. It requires compliance with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) and prohibits AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions or non-existent cases.
Standing order · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of Illinois (Judge Johnston)Illinois
Judge Johnston’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page states a standing order on AI for counsel and unrepresented parties. It reminds filers using AI in pleadings, motions, papers, or discovery materials that they must comply with Rule 11(b), Rule 26(g), and any other relevant rule.
Standing order · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of Illinois (Judge Valdez)Illinois
Magistrate Judge Valdez’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page warns all filers that pleadings and other papers must conform with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 11, and/or 26(g). It identifies misuse of artificial intelligence as a violation that may result in sanctions.
Standing order · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Eastern District of MissouriMissouri
The Eastern District of Missouri’s Artificial Intelligence attorney page is a concise notice. It does not require disclosure or certification, but it states that attorneys and self-represented parties presenting any pleading, written motion, or paper remain responsible for its contents, including AI-generated portions, under Rule 11(b).
Guidance · Competence
2026-09-06In force
District of NebraskaNebraska
The District of Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d), effective December 1, 2024, requires civil briefs to include a certificate stating either that no generative AI program was used in drafting or that a human signatory verified the accuracy of all generated text, including all citations and legal authority.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
District of New Mexico (Judge Strickland)New Mexico
Judge Strickland’s standing order applies to all cases assigned to her. Parties using generative AI in preparing documents for filing must disclose AI use and the specific tool in the document and certify that AI-drafted portions, including citations and legal authority, were checked for accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of Ohio (Judge Boyko)Ohio
Judge Boyko’s Northern District of Ohio standing order on generative AI prohibits attorneys and pro se parties from using AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court. It excludes legal and internet search engines, requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered, and warns of sanctions including striking, economic sanctions, contempt, and dismissal.
Standing order · Prohibition
2026-09-06In force
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Cinquanto)Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge Caroline Goldner Cinquanto’s policies and procedures require any attorney or pro se party using generative AI to prepare a complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other filed paper to disclose AI use, identify generated portions, identify the specific tool and how it was used, and certify citations to law or record.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Camoni)Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing a document filed before him to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and human checking of accuracy, citations, and legal authority.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Caraballo)Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page cautions all parties and counsel using generative AI about factual and legal errors, nonexistent citations, and confidential-information disclosure. It directs them to verify facts and legal citations prepared through generative AI and safeguard confidential information, with sanctions possible for noncompliance.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Latella)Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing a document filed before him to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and human checking of accuracy, citations, and legal authority.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Mehalchick)Pennsylvania
Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing any document to be filed before her to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and that a person checked accuracy, citations, and legal authority.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-06In force
Eastern District of WisconsinWisconsin
The Eastern District of Wisconsin representing-yourself notice warns pro se and other filers that documents created with AI assistance may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications. It states that filers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of filings and that erroneous or misleading filings may result in Rule 11 sanctions.
Guidance · Competence
2026-09-06In force
Northern District of California (Judge Lin)California
Judge Rita F. Lin’s civil standing order for the Northern District of California permits generative AI use but requires counsel and self-represented litigants to personally confirm research accuracy and remain responsible for filings. The order also asks class settlement papers to address AI use in administration and safeguards.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-09-04In force
Northern District of Georgia (Judge Johnson)Georgia
Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia requires counsel and pro se parties in civil cases to disclose AI use in preparing filings or submissions. The guidelines modified September 1, 2026 require a tool-identifying disclosure and a penalty-of-perjury independent-review certification.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-09-01In force
Eastern District of Virginia (Judge Lauck)Virginia
Chief Judge Lauck of the Eastern District of Virginia requires disclosure and citation review certification in all civil cases assigned to her. The September 1, 2026 standing order says any party using generative AI to prepare a filing must identify that use and certify citation accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-09-01In force
Northern District of California (Judge Lee)California
Judge Eumi K. Lee’s updated civil standing order in the Northern District of California permits generative AI tools with conditions. Counsel must verify AI-assisted research, include a lead-trial-counsel certification for AI-generated submissions, and preserve prompt records if those records become relevant.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty · Record-keeping
2026-08-31In force
Northern District of California (Judge Martínez-Olguín)California
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s revised Northern District of California civil standing order allows ChatGPT and similar tools while requiring lead trial counsel to certify accuracy for submissions containing AI-generated content. Counsel must verify content and maintain prompt or inquiry records if they become relevant.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty · Record-keeping
2026-08-26In force
District of Nevada (Judge III)Nevada
Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III’s second amended District of Nevada standing order permits AI use with conditions. Filings with AI-generated content require a certification, users must verify citations and facts, sealed or personal-identifier documents may not be uploaded to open AI systems, and violations may be sanctioned.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-08-17In force
District of Maryland (Judge III)Maryland
The District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2026-03 on August 5, 2026 for generative AI in court filings. The order cautions attorneys and unrepresented parties to verify all filings before submission and warns that hallucinated citations, quotations, or representations may lead to Rule 11 sanctions.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-08-05In force
Central District of California (Judge Hwang)California
Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-08-03In force
Northern District of Georgia (Judge Jones)Georgia
Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia requires counsel and pro se parties to disclose any AI use in preparing civil submissions. The instructions revised August 2026 require a tool-identifying certification and prohibit exposing protective-order information to an AI program, tool, or application.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-08-01In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Marmolejo)Texas
Judge Marmolejo’s criminal procedures contain a generative-AI section for criminal filings. It requires factual and legal review of AI-assisted filings, holds signers accountable for all content submitted under their names, and warns that reliance on inaccurate or frivolous AI content may trigger sanctions.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-08-01In force
Central District of California (Judge Hwang)California
Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-07-31In force
Western District of North CarolinaNorth Carolina
The Western District of North Carolina superseded its 2024 AI order on July 29, 2026. Attorneys and pro se parties may use AI, but every filing is deemed to certify factual support, legal validity, existing and accurate authorities, accurate quotations, and required human verification.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2026-07-29In force
Central District of California (Judge Hsu)California
Judge Wesley L. Hsu’s amended civil standing order contains extensive AI provisions for filings, discovery, confidentiality, and arbitration. It requires declarations identifying AI-prepared portions, verification of each citation, prompt records, discovery disclosure for AI-generated evidence, and bars uploads of discovery to public AI systems.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality · Record-keeping
2026-07-23In force
Central District of California (Judge Slaughter)California
Civil Standing Order requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-07-10In force
Central District of California (Judge Scarsi)California
Judge Mark C. Scarsi’s Central District of California civil standing order requires parties using a generative AI platform in connection with a filing to attach a declaration. The declaration discloses AI use, identifies AI-output portions, and certifies independent review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-07-01In force
Northern District of California (Judge Chhabria)California
Judge Vince Chhabria’s Northern District of California civil standing order addresses artificial intelligence in class settlement administration. Parties seeking preliminary settlement approval must state whether AI will be used by the administrator, subcontractors, or vendors and, if so, identify safeguards for accuracy and bias.
Standing order · Disclosure
2026-06-26In force
Western District of Texas (Judge Gonzalez)Texas
Judge Gonzalez’s standing order applies to represented and pro se parties in civil and criminal cases. It extends his criminal standing-order AI certificate to all cases, requiring a Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage with any AI-assisted pleading and certification of independent verification and confidentiality protection.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Confidentiality
2026-06-25In force
Northern District of West Virginia (Judge Kleeh)West Virginia
The Northern District of West Virginia issued a June 16, 2026 standing order for AI tools used to review criminal discovery. Defense counsel must obtain government consent before exposing sensitive materials to AI tools, identify and describe the tool, and certify confidentiality, non-retention, and deletion protections.
Standing order · Disclosure · Confidentiality
2026-06-16In force
Northern District of Alabama (Judge Manasco)Alabama
Judge Manasco of the Northern District of Alabama warns parties and counsel about false statements generated by artificial intelligence. The June 15, 2026 initial order does not impose a disclosure certification, but it describes show-cause procedures and possible sanctions if AI-generated false law or facts appear in filings.
Standing order · Competence
2026-06-15In force
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
Central District of California (Judge Staton)California
Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-05-29In force
Central District of California (Judge Staton)California
Order Re Criminal Proceedings requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-05-29In force
District of New Jersey (Judge Padin)New Jersey
Judge Evelyn Padin’s revised May 28, 2026 general pretrial and trial procedures require mandatory certification for any generative AI use in court filings. The certification must state that the GAI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability, including correcting errors and eliminating hallucinations.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-05-28In force
Middle District of Florida (Judge Moe)Florida
Judge Moe of the Middle District of Florida requires every filing in the civil case to include a verbatim certification about AI use. The May 27, 2026 order requires disclosure and a description if AI was used, and requires the signer to personally read cited cases.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-05-27In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Olvera)Texas
Judge Olvera’s current civil local rules require all attorneys and pro se litigants to file a generative-AI certificate with the proposed scheduling order. The certificate requires either no AI drafting of filings or human checking of any AI-drafted language, including citations and legal analysis, before submission.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2026-05-22In force
Federal Rules of Evidence / Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules
The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules reported a revised proposed Rule 707 that would regulate AI-produced evidence offered at trial without an expert witness, require the proponent to establish Rule 702-style reliability, ordinarily require expert explanation, and require reasonable notice to adverse parties.
Court rule · Disclosure
2026-05-17Proposed
Southern District of New York (Judge Subramanian)New York
Judge Arun Subramanian’s civil individual practices, revised May 11, 2026, state that use of ChatGPT or similar tools is not prohibited. Counsel remain responsible for complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and legal authorities, and must personally confirm the accuracy of research done with those tools.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-05-11In force
M.D. Fla. (Berger)Florida
Standing order of 2 April 2026 by Judge Wendy Berger (M.D. Fla.). Every filer must certify that no generative AI was used, or that a human reviewed any AI-drafted language for accuracy and that all citations are real and accurate. Non-compliant filings may be stricken; repeated failures risk dismissal with prejudice, default or referral.
Standing order · Verification duty · Certification
2026-04-02In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Kazen)Texas
Judge Kazen’s civil procedures mirror the district-wide AI warnings in a judge-specific civil practice document. The procedures direct attorneys and self-represented litigants to thoroughly review AI-assisted filings before submission and state that AI, staff, or other assistance will not excuse Rule 11 or ethical violations.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-04-01In force
N.D. Ill. (Fuentes)Illinois
Standing order for civil cases before Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes, Northern District of Illinois. The 31 May 2023 revision required parties to disclose generative AI use and name the tool; the current order (PDF dated 4 March 2026) drops that duty, refers counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy and relies on the Rule 11 certification.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2026-03-04In force
District of Colorado (Judge Kane)Colorado
Judge John L. Kane’s revised District of Colorado civil pretrial and trial procedures require a certification in every filing prepared in whole or part with generative AI. The certification identifies AI-prepared portions, confirms human accuracy review using traditional sources, and attests citations are real.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-03-01In force
Northern District of California (Judge Cisneros)California
Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros’s civil standing order states that parties may use lawful technological assistance, including AI tools, for research or drafting. Attorneys and unrepresented parties remain responsible for submissions, and failure to verify briefs and citations may lead to sanctions or striking.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-02-17In force
Northern District of Georgia (Judge Grimberg)Georgia
Judge Grimberg of the Northern District of Georgia permits use of AI tools in civil cases but states that human beings remain responsible for filed work. The February 2026 standing order does not require AI disclosure or certification, and it warns parties and lawyers to govern themselves accordingly.
Standing order · Permissive
2026-02-10In force
Northern District of California (Judge Keulen)California
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen’s updated civil and discovery referral standing order permits generative AI use in submissions but treats the signer’s signature as a certification that AI-generated content was personally verified. The order also requires prompt records if they become relevant.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty · Record-keeping
2026-02-01In force
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Kearney)Pennsylvania
Judge Mark A. Kearney’s February 2026 policies and procedures warn parties and counsel that false representations, including artificial-intelligence hallucinations, may lead to sanctions under professional-conduct and civil or criminal procedure rules. The policies put parties and counsel on notice to double-check citations and reliance on AI in filings.
Standing order · Verification duty
2026-02-01In force
District of Kansas (Judge Broomes)Kansas
Chief Judge Broomes’s District of Kansas standing order cautions all lawyers and parties, including pro se litigants, about AI-created false statements and fabricated authorities. It makes filers responsible for reviewing and verifying AI-drafted or assisted content and reserves discretion to require sworn AI-use disclosures.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2026-01-28In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Ho)New York
Judge Dale E. Ho’s January 8, 2026 civil individual practices for represented civil matters require any party using generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying review of source material, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-01-08In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Ho)New York
Judge Dale E. Ho’s revised January 8, 2026 criminal individual practices require any party using generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-01-08In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Ho)New York
Judge Dale E. Ho’s January 8, 2026 civil pro se practices require any party in a civil pro se case who uses generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying source review and accuracy.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-01-08In force
Central District of California (Judge Jr.)California
Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2026-01-06In force
District of Colorado (Judge Crews)Colorado
Judge S. Kato Crews’s revised District of Colorado civil standing order requires AI certifications for substantive motions and related briefing. Filers must disclose use or non-use of generative AI, certify human accuracy review when AI drafted language, and confirm citations are real or the filing may be stricken.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2026-01-01In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Clarke)New York
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke’s January 2026 civil individual practices state that any attorney using generative artificial intelligence in connection with a court filing or with discovery requests, responses, or objections must comply with Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and applicable ethical rules.
Standing order · Competence
2026-01-01In force
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules / Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S asks the federal Civil Rules committee to consider amending Rule 11(a) so documents with citations and generative-AI-created content include a certification that supervised human review confirmed authorities exist, citations are accurate, and the authorities support the propositions cited.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-12-16Proposed
Eastern District of TexasTexas
The Eastern District of Texas amended its local rules to address generative AI. Current CV-11(g) tells pro se litigants and represented parties that they remain bound by Rule 11 and must review and verify all content generated with AI, while AT-3(m) similarly reminds attorneys that AI cannot replace independent legal judgment.
Court rule · Verification duty
2025-12-01In force
Southern District of California (Judge Latham)California
The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court’s General Order 210 applies to all filers starting January 1, 2026. Any pleading, motion, or paper prepared in any aspect with generative AI must include a signed certification identifying the AI program and confirming factual and legal accuracy review.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-11-18In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Torres)New York
Judge Analisa Torres’s revised November 5, 2025 civil individual practices remind parties and counsel of Rule 11 duties and require a submitting party and counsel to confirm for themselves that any submission prepared with generative AI, and all source material within it, is accurate and Rule 11 compliant.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2025-11-05In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Broderick)New York
Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s October 29, 2025 civil rules require any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose that use. If AI drafts filed documents, the party must certify independent review and verification of citations, quotations, legal authority, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-29In force
Southern District of New York (Judge Cronan)New York
Judge John P. Cronan’s revised October 23, 2025 civil rules require an attorney signing an AI-assisted filing to attach a signed certification stating whether the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and, if so, describing steps taken to verify legal authorities and factual assertions generated by AI.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-23In force
S.D. Ohio (Graham)Ohio
Standing order of 21 October 2025 by Judge James Graham (S.D. Ohio). A filing prepared with generative AI must carry a declaration naming the platform and identifying the AI-assisted content by page, section or paragraph, and certifying that the filer reviewed the sources and verified the submission's accuracy under Rule 11(b).
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-21In force
District of South DakotaSouth Dakota
The District of South Dakota public notice dated October 20, 2025, proposes Civil Local Rule 7.2 on artificial intelligence. The proposed rule requires attorneys and pro se parties to personally review and confirm the accuracy of legal filings, including citations and legal analysis, regardless of whether AI assisted in any portion of the filing.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-20Proposed
District of South DakotaSouth Dakota
The District of South Dakota public notice dated October 20, 2025, proposes Criminal Local Rule 12.2 on artificial intelligence. The proposed rule requires attorneys and pro se parties to personally review and confirm the accuracy of legal filings, including citations and legal analysis, regardless of whether AI assisted in creating the filing.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
2025-10-20Proposed
District of MinnesotaMinnesota
The District of Minnesota GenAI FAQ, dated October 1, 2025, describes common generative AI litigation uses and limitations. It states that the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings, gives practice pointers on confidentiality and checking research, and reminds litigants that legal, procedural, ethical, and protective-order obligations still apply.
Guidance · Permissive
2025-10-01In force
District of ConnecticutConnecticut
The District of Connecticut’s September 12, 2025 notice tells attorneys and pro se litigants to exercise great caution when submitting AI-generated language in filings. It warns that unverified AI output implicates Rule 11 and that briefing, AI-assisted or not, hallucinating legal propositions or misstating law will often result in sanctions.
Guidance · Competence
2025-09-12In force
Southern District of Ohio (Judge Newman)Ohio
Judge Newman’s Southern District of Ohio civil standing order adds an AI provision effective August 27, 2025. It bars attorneys and pro se parties from using AI to prepare any court filing, excludes legal search engines, internet search engines, and Microsoft Suite-type products, and requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered.
Standing order · Disclosure · Prohibition
2025-08-27In force
Southern District of Ohio (Judge Newman)Ohio
Judge Newman’s Southern District of Ohio criminal standing order adds an AI provision effective August 27, 2025. It prohibits attorneys and pro se parties from using AI to prepare filings, excludes legal search engines, internet search engines, and Microsoft Suite-type products, and requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered.
Standing order · Disclosure · Prohibition
2025-08-27In force
Southern District of Ohio (Judge Hopkins)Ohio
Judge Hopkins’s Southern District of Ohio standing order, issued August 20, 2025, requires any party or self-represented litigant using generative AI to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing the use and certifying source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2025-08-20In force
Northern District of California (Judge Thompson)California
Judge Trina L. Thompson’s Northern District of California civility standing order allows ChatGPT and similar AI tools but makes counsel responsible for verifying AI-assisted research and filings. It also requires billing statements submitted to the court to indicate AI usage when applicable.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty
2025-08-18In 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
United States Court of International Trade (Judge Kelly)
Judge Claire R. Kelly of the Court of International Trade requires filings in her cases that contain text drafted with generative AI to include a disclosure identifying the program and portions drafted, plus a certification that confidential or business proprietary information was not disclosed to unauthorized parties.
Standing order · Disclosure · Confidentiality
2025-07-24In force
United States Court of International Trade (Judge Restani)
Judge Jane A. Restani of the Court of International Trade requires AI-drafted text in submissions in her cases to be disclosed by program and text portion, and requires certification that use of the generative AI program did not disclose confidential or business proprietary information to unauthorized parties.
Standing order · Disclosure · Confidentiality
2025-07-24In force
Northern District of California (Judge Kang)California
Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang’s civil standing order gives detailed conditions for AI use in filings, evidence, and confidentiality. It requires identification of AI-drafted text, prompt or portion records on request, discovery disclosure for AI-generated evidence, and verification against hallucinated citations or facts.
Standing order · Disclosure · Verification duty · Record-keeping
2025-07-16In force
United States Court of International Trade (Judge Choe-Groves)
Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the Court of International Trade requires counsel and pro se litigants filing generative-AI-drafted text in her cases to disclose the program, manner of use, and portions drafted, certify human review for factual and legal accuracy, and certify no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Confidentiality
2025-07-03In force
Central District of California (Judge Olguin)California
Judge Fernando M. Olguin’s Central District of California initial standing order treats submission of a filing prepared with an AI tool as a certification by the responsible person. The certification covers review of all source material and verification of the accuracy of AI content under Rule 11.
Standing order · Certification
2025-07-01In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Kazen)Texas
Judge Kazen’s criminal procedures add a case-specific AI section for criminal matters. Attorneys and self-represented litigants must thoroughly review any filing prepared with generative AI for factual and legal accuracy, remain accountable for submitted content, and may face sanctions for inaccurate or frivolous AI-generated content.
Standing order · Permissive
2025-06-23In force
Northern District of Alabama (Judge Axon)Alabama
Judge Axon of the Northern District of Alabama requires AI disclosure in civil submissions. The May 23, 2025 initial order requires attorneys and pro se parties who use AI to prepare filings to identify the AI tool and certify independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2025-05-23In force
District of WyomingWyoming
The District of Wyoming’s General Order 25-01 addresses artificial intelligence in the preparation of filings. It reminds represented and pro se litigants of Rule 11, recognizes potential benefits of AI, but strictly prohibits AI-generated arguments or citations not warranted by existing law, including hallucinated authorities.
Standing order · Verification duty
2025-05-13In force
District of New Mexico (Judge Gonzales)New Mexico
Chief Judge Gonzales’s District of New Mexico bulletin reminds counsel and unrepresented parties that Rule 11 requires legal contentions in signed papers to be warranted. The bulletin reports apparent AI-generated arguments and citations to nonexistent cases and warns that such practices are prohibited and may be sanctioned.
Guidance · Competence
2025-05-09In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Crane)Texas
Southern District of Texas General Order 2025-04 is a district-wide caution about generative AI in court filings. It warns lawyers and pro se parties that AI content can be inaccurate, should not replace lawyer judgment, and will not excuse Rule 11 or ethics violations, but it does not impose a separate AI disclosure certificate.
Standing order · Competence
2025-05-07In force
Southern District of Texas (Judge Marmolejo)Texas
Judge Marmolejo’s civil procedures include a generative-AI section requiring attorneys and self-represented litigants to review AI-assisted filings for factual and legal accuracy. The section emphasizes continuing Rule 11 and ethics responsibility and adopts the Southern District’s General Order 2025-04 by reference.
Standing order · Permissive
2025-05-01In force
United States Court of International Trade
The Court of International Trade posted a court-wide notice telling attorneys using generative AI to be mindful of individual chambers procedures or orders on confidential and business proprietary information and of Rule 11 obligations regarding representations made to the court.
Guidance · Competence
2025-03-21In force
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Scott)Pennsylvania
Judge Kai N. Scott’s March 3, 2025 standing order requires an attorney or pro se party using generative AI, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or similar machine-learning tools, in a citation of legal authority filed with the court to disclose AI use, disclose the specific program, and certify every citation is accurate.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2025-03-03In force
District of Colorado (Judge Prose)Colorado
Magistrate Judge Susan Prose’s District of Colorado standing order requires AI-use or non-use certifications for specified filings in consent cases and referred nondispositive opposed motions. The preparer must certify human review of AI-drafted language and that legal citations are actual authority, or the filing will be stricken.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-10-21In force
Southern District of New YorkNew York
The Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court’s amended September 30, 2024 Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1 cautions litigants that technologies including ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, and generative AI services may produce inaccurate content and requires review and verification of computer-generated content for Rule 9011 compliance.
Court rule · Certification · Verification duty
2024-09-30In 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
Northern District of Alabama (Judge Haikala)Alabama
Judge Haikala of the Northern District of Alabama permits generative AI use in preparing court submissions but requires review and verification. The chambers initial order, dated by the court PDF as of July 8, 2024, cautions attorneys and pro se litigants about accuracy and Rule 11 obligations.
Standing order · Permissive
2024-07-08In 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
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Hodge)Pennsylvania
Judge Kelley B. Hodge’s civil procedures state that anyone, counsel or pro se litigant, using generative artificial intelligence in connection with filing a pleading, motion, or paper, or serving or delivering discovery requests, responses, or objections, must comply with Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and applicable ethical rules.
Standing order · Competence
2024-05-10In force
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Pratter)Pennsylvania
Judge Gene E. K. Pratter’s May 3, 2024 standing order requires counsel or self-represented parties to disclose any generative AI use in preparing a complaint, answer, motion, brief, other paper, or court correspondence. If used, the filer must certify every citation to law or the record as authentic and accurate.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2024-05-03In force
United States Patent and Trademark Office, including PTAB and TTAB (Judge Vidal)
The USPTO guidance states that AI tools are not prohibited and generally need not be disclosed in USPTO practice, including PTAB and TTAB filings, but signed AI-assisted papers must be human reviewed, supported by reasonable inquiry, checked for factual and legal accuracy, and handled to protect confidentiality and USPTO systems.
Policy · Certification
2024-04-11In force
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
Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO (Judge Vidal)
The USPTO Director advised the PTAB, TTAB, and General Counsel that existing regulations apply when parties and practitioners use AI in Board submissions, requiring signed papers to be reviewed by a person, accuracy of factual and legal representations verified, confidentiality protected, and sanctions available for misconduct.
Policy · Certification
2024-02-06In force
Eastern District of MichiganMichigan
The Eastern District of Michigan notice dated December 8, 2023, proposed a Local Rule 5.1 amendment requiring filers to disclose use of generative AI to compose or draft any paper presented for filing. It would require an attestation that citations were human-verified with traditional sources and that the paper was checked for accuracy.
Court rule · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2023-12-08Proposed
Northern District of Texas (Judge Kacsmaryk)Texas
Judge Kacsmaryk’s certificate requires attorneys appearing before him to certify compliance with judge-specific requirements. It contains the same generative-AI attestation model as Judge Starr’s form, requiring no AI drafting or human review of any AI-drafted language, citations, paraphrases, and legal analysis.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2023-11-27In force
District of HawaiiHawaii
District of Hawaii General Order 23-1 addresses filings generated by AI platforms and other unverified sources. Counsel and pro se parties submitting such material must file a concurrent declaration identifying reliance on unverified sources and verifying that the material is not fictitious.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification
2023-11-14In force
Eastern District of Oklahoma (Judge Robertson)Oklahoma
Magistrate Judge Robertson’s standing order requires parties using generative AI in preparing documents for filing to disclose that use in the document, identify the specific tool, and certify that AI-drafted portions have been checked for accuracy, including citations and legal authority.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2023-09-27In force
Western District of Oklahoma (Judge Palk)Oklahoma
Chief Judge Palk’s standing order requires any party who uses generative AI to prepare documents for filing to disclose that use in the document, identify the specific AI tool, and certify that the AI-drafted portions were checked for accuracy, including citations and legal authority.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty
2023-09-01In force
Western District of OklahomaOklahoma
The Western District of Oklahoma Bankruptcy Court requires an attestation for any filed document drafted with generative AI. The attestation must identify the tool and specific text portions, certify that the document was checked by reliable means, and certify that no confidential information was disclosed to unauthorized parties.
Standing order · Disclosure · Certification · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2023-07-25In force
Northern District of TexasTexas
The Northern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court’s General Order 2023-03 addresses pleadings or other papers drafted with generative AI. It requires filers to verify that AI-generated language was checked for accuracy by reliable non-AI means and warns that noncompliance may lead to Bankruptcy Rule 9011 sanctions.
Standing order · Certification · Verification duty
2023-06-21In force
United States Court of International Trade (Judge Vaden)
Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden of the Court of International Trade requires any party filing AI-drafted text in his cases to provide a notice identifying the generative AI program and the specific drafted portions, and to certify that no confidential or business proprietary information was disclosed to an unauthorized party.
Standing order · Disclosure · Confidentiality
2023-06-08In 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. 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.
United States