Court AI Disclosure Orders

5th Cir.: No circuit-wide AI standing order — a proposed certification rule was rejected June 2024. Individual district judges within the circuit (e.g., N.D. Tex., E.D. Tex.) have their own orders. All AI-generated content must be independently verified under FRAP and professional ethics obligations.

The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification rule (Nov. 2023) but REJECTED it on June 12, 2024. No circuit-wide standing order governing AI use in filings exists as of that date. However, individual district judges within the Fifth Circuit have issued their own AI orders (e.g., Judge Brantley Starr, N.D. Tex.; E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(g), eff. Dec. 1, 2025). Existing obligations under FRAP and professional ethics require attorneys to ensure the accuracy of all filed content regardless of how it was produced. If this citation was generated with AI assistance, the certifying attorney must independently verify it against an authoritative source before filing.

Source: FRAP; 5th Cir. proposed Local Rule 32.3 (rejected June 12, 2024); individual district judge orders

U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal. (Judge Anne Hwang): A party that uses AI for any portion of a filing must file a separate declaration disclosing the AI use and certify that the generated content is accurate and complies with Rule 11.

Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Section E.5 (Artificial Intelligence): "Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations." The standing order applies to civil litigation assigned to Judge Hwang and directs counsel for the plaintiff to immediately serve the order on all parties, including any new parties to the action.

Source: Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang, Section E.5 (Artificial Intelligence), U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal.

Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden (U.S. Court of International Trade): Any submission containing text drafted with a generative AI program from natural-language prompts (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard) must be accompanied by (1) a disclosure notice identifying the program and the specific portions so drafted, and (2) a certification that such use did not result in the disclosure of confidential or business-proprietary information to any unauthorized party — a confidentiality rationale distinct from the usual accuracy/hallucination focus.

Order on Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden: "ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Vaden that contains text drafted with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence program on the basis of natural language prompts, including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard, must be accompanied by: (1) A disclosure notice that identifies the program used and the specific portions of text that have been so drafted; (2) A certification that the use of such program has not resulted in the disclosure of any confidential or business proprietary information to any unauthorized party." The order is grounded in the court's duty to protect confidential and business-proprietary information (USCIT Rules 5(g), 73.2(c)(2)).

Source: Order on Artificial Intelligence, U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen A. Vaden (c. 2023)

D.D.C.: No confirmed district-wide AI standing order as of Apr 2026. Individual judges may have their own requirements. Verify the assigned judge's standing orders.

As of April 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) has no confirmed district-wide AI standing order — the D.D.C. standing orders page lists no AI-specific orders. The D.C. Courts (local courts, distinct from D.D.C.) have an internal AI policy for staff, but this does not govern attorney filings. Individual D.D.C. judges may have their own requirements; attorneys must check the assigned judge's standing orders before filing. Given the high volume of federal agency and administrative law cases, incorrect AI-generated citations to statutes and regulations carry heightened risk.

Source: No confirmed district-wide order — verify assigned judge individual standing orders (dcd.uscourts.gov)

E.D. Tex.: District-wide Local Rule CV-11(g) (eff. Dec. 1, 2025) requires all litigants to review and verify accuracy of AI-generated content. Individual judges may have additional requirements.

The Eastern District of Texas adopted Local Rule CV-11(g) as amended by General Order 25-07 (Chief Judge Mazzant, Oct. 31, 2025; effective Dec. 1, 2025), requiring ALL litigants to "review and verify any computer-generated content" produced by generative AI technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat). The rule applies to both represented and pro se litigants, and ties enforcement to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Local Rule AT-3(m) imposes parallel obligations on attorneys. The rule does not require identifying the specific AI tool. Earlier judge-specific orders (including from Judge Gilstrap) predate the district-wide local rule; confirm whether the assigned judge has additional requirements.

Source: E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(g) as amended by General Order 25-07, Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant (signed Oct. 31, 2025; effective Dec. 1, 2025)

22nd Judicial Circuit (McHenry County, IL — Chief Judge Chmiel): Administrative Order 2024-23 is an admonition directing participants to engage AI carefully and directing judges to consider their own AI standing orders; it imposes no specific AI certification or disclosure duty on attorney filings. Check the assigned judge for any judge-specific standing order.

Administrative Order No. 2024-23, 22nd Judicial Circuit, McHenry County, Illinois (Artificial Intelligence Policy and Plan), Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel (Oct. 9, 2024): "THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Participants and professionals in cases in this Circuit shall consider the admonitions set forth above and engage AI carefully, especially with regard to the rules which govern the use of AI directly and indirectly. 2. The Judges of this Circuit shall consider the admonitions set forth above and engage AI carefully, as with the use of AI in their courtrooms and with their own use of AI. 3. The Judges of this Circuit shall endeavor to: A. Learn about AI; B. Consider and learn about available legal research tools which utilize AI; C. Learn how AI can otherwise be used; and D. Implement Standing Orders which address the use of AI."

Source: Administrative Order No. 2024-23, 22nd Judicial Circuit, McHenry County, IL, Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel (Oct. 9, 2024)

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL — Law Division (Judge Cleary): A party must disclose in writing on any filed document that AI was used to create it and that the party has verified the existence and accuracy of any authority cited; failure to do so may result in sanctions.

Standing Order – Jury Trials of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department — Law Division, Trial Section (Courtroom 2303), Section 1 (Artificial Intelligence): "A party submitting any document, motion, brief or memoranda to the Court must disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used in the creation of the document and that the party has verified the existence and accuracy of any authority cited. A failure to do so may result in sanctions." (Standing order dated February 14, 2024.)

Source: Standing Order – Jury Trials, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Law Division (Courtroom 2303), § 1 (Feb. 14, 2024)

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL — Chancery Division (Hon. Cecilia A. Horan, Calendar 9): Any use of large language model AI (e.g., ChatGPT) in preparing briefs or other submissions must be indicated in the caption of the filing; failure to do so may result in sanctions.

Standing Order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department — Chancery Division, Judge Cecilia A. Horan, General Chancery Calendar 9 (effective April 5, 2024), Section XIII (Artificial Intelligence): "Any use of large language model artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, in the preparation of briefs or other submissions to the Court must be indicated in the caption on the motion, brief or other filing with the Court. Failure to do so may result in sanctions."

Source: Standing Order, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Chancery Division, Judge Cecilia A. Horan (General Chancery Calendar 9), § XIII (eff. Apr. 5, 2024)

Illinois Supreme Court (statewide policy, eff. Jan. 1, 2025): AI use by litigants, attorneys, judges, and court staff is authorized and should not be discouraged, and disclosure of AI use should NOT be required in a pleading. Users remain fully accountable for their final work product and must thoroughly review all AI-generated content for accuracy before submitting it. Individual circuit courts and judges may still impose their own AI rules.

Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective January 1, 2025): "The use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys, and court staff providing similar support may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading. … [Attorneys and self-represented litigants] are accountable for their final work product. All users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations. Prior to employing any technology, including generative AI applications, users must understand both general AI capabilities and the specific tools being utilized." Applies across the Illinois courts (78 circuit courts).

Source: Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (eff. Jan. 1, 2025)

N.D. Cal.: AI disclosure requirements vary by judge. Judge Martínez-Olguín has a confirmed standing order with sanctions for non-compliance. Judge Chhabria has no AI standing order. Check the assigned judge's individual requirements.

There is no district-wide AI standing order for the N.D. Cal. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín has a confirmed AI standing order that includes a sanctions provision for failure to comply with the certification requirement. Judge Vince Chhabria has no AI standing order. Attorneys practicing in N.D. Cal. must check whether the assigned judge has issued an AI-specific order.

Source: Individual judge standing orders — N.D. Cal. (Martínez-Olguín confirmed; verify assigned judge)

Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division): Parties must meet and confer on generative AI issues and address them in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement. Standing Order last revised July 16, 2025.

Under Section IV.C ("Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings with the Court") of the Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division), last revised July 16, 2025, "counsel and parties shall meet and confer on any concerns, issues, and proposals for handling generative AI-related issues specific to or anticipated in their case, and shall report on and raise any such AI-related issues in their Joint Case Management Conference and Pretrial Statements." The order draws a definitional line between generative AI (capable of creating original content from prompts) and other categories of AI that operate on pre-established algorithms; the provisions apply to generative AI specifically. Parties with specific AI-related case modification proposals are encouraged to raise them through the case management procedures.

Source: Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Section IV.C, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (San Francisco Division), last revised July 16, 2025

N.D. Tex. (Judge Brantley Starr): Requires certification that AI was or was not used; if used, all AI-generated content must be verified using print reporters or traditional legal databases.

Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) issued one of the first federal AI standing orders (May 30, 2023), titled "Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence." Attorneys must file a certificate attesting either (A) no portion of the filing was drafted by generative AI, or (B) any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases. Does not require identifying the specific AI tool. Orthodoxy satisfies option (B) via the QualityCheckSignOff.

Source: Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence, Judge Brantley Starr, N.D. Tex. (May 30, 2023)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Tex. — General Order 2023-03 (June 21, 2023): Any portion of a pleading drafted using generative AI must be verified using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means. Failure may subject filers to sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011.

Under General Order 2023-03 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, signed June 21, 2023, if any portion of a pleading or other paper filed on the court's docket has been drafted utilizing generative AI (including ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard), all attorneys and pro se litigants must verify that any AI-generated language was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means. The order states that AI systems "hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States and are likewise not factually or legally trustworthy sources without human verification." Failure to comply may subject filers to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011.

Source: General Order 2023-03, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (June 21, 2023)

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (N.D. Tex., Amarillo Division): Filing a notice of appearance requires a docketed certificate attesting either no AI use or that any AI-drafted language was checked by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases. The Court will strike filings from any party who fails to file the certificate.

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (N.D. Tex., Amarillo Division) requires that all attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court file, together with their notice of appearance, a docketed certificate attesting either (A) that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard), or (B) that any language drafted by generative AI will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being. The order states that "these platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias" and that the Court "will strike any filing from a party who fails to file a certificate on the docket attesting that they have read the Court's judge-specific requirements and understand that they will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing that they sign and submit to the Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing." This is a per-judge requirement distinct from the district-wide N.D. Tex. order issued by Judge Starr.

Source: Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, U.S. District Court, N.D. Tex. (Amarillo Division), Judge-Specific Requirements

Integrated Domestic Violence Court, New York (Hon. Tandra L. Dawson): If AI is used to prepare any filed document involving substantive legal research and writing (e.g., a legal memorandum or summation), counsel or a self-represented litigant must append an affirmation stating that AI (such as ChatGPT) was used and affirming that the legal research and writing was reviewed and verified for accuracy before submission.

Rules of Court, Integrated Domestic Violence Court, Hon. Tandra L. Dawson (updated December 3, 2024), Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): "1. If AI is used to prepare any document submitted for filing with the court that involves substantive legal research and writing (such as a legal memorandum, summation, etc.), counsel or a pro se litigant shall submit an affirmation at the end of the document stating that AI, such as ChatGPT, was used in preparation of the document. 2. The affirmation should also affirm that the legal research and writing in the document was reviewed and verified to ensure accuracy prior to submission to the court."

Source: Rules of Court, Integrated Domestic Violence Court (NY), Hon. Tandra L. Dawson (updated Dec. 3, 2024)

New York Unified Court System (statewide — 22 NYCRR Part 161, eff. June 1, 2026): AI use in court papers is permitted and attorneys are NOT required to disclose it. Existing duties (no false statements or frivolous arguments; Rules of Professional Conduct) already require independent review for fabricated citations. A court MAY adopt the Appendix A model rule requiring a review certification — check the assigned court / part rules.

Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts (AO/75/26, dated March 25, 2026), adding 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026). § 161.3 Policy: "It is the policy of the Unified Court System that the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court. Since those duties and responsibilities already apply to all submissions, regardless of whether AI tools were used, attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers." § 161.4 permits a court, in its discretion, to adopt the Appendix A Model Rule, under which any attorney or party using an AI tool "is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material," and by signing certifies such review was conducted.

Source: Administrative Order AO/75/26, Chief Administrative Judge of the NY Courts, adding 22 NYCRR Part 161 (signed Mar. 25, 2026; effective June 1, 2026)

New York State Unified Court System — Interim Policy on the Use of AI (internal): This policy governs the court system's OWN WORKFORCE (judges and staff) use of AI; it does not impose requirements on attorney filings. Listed for context only — for attorney-facing obligations in NY state courts, see the statewide 22 NYCRR Part 161 (AO/75/26) entry.

New York State Unified Court System — Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence: "This interim policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is designed to promote the responsible and ethical use of AI technology in the New York State Unified Court System (UCS). This document outlines important guardrails to ensure fairness, accountability, and security in the use of AI, particularly generative AI, by our workforce. Mandatory requirements and restrictions governing the use of AI are set forth below, in Section V." NOTE: this is an internal workforce policy (governing court personnel), not a rule imposing obligations on attorney filings; it is cataloged here for context alongside the attorney-facing Part 161 statewide rule.

Source: NY State Unified Court System — Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (internal workforce policy)

Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst (E.D.N.Y.): Individual practice rules caution that any use of AI in connection with submissions to the Court must still comply with counsel's professional obligations to the Court. No separate AI certification form is required, but Rule 11 and professional-conduct duties apply in full.

Individual Practice Rules of Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst (U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.; updated/effective November 3, 2025): "The parties are cautioned to ensure that any use of Artificial Intelligence resources in connection with their submissions to the Court still comply with their professional obligations to the Court." The rule does not impose a separate AI disclosure or certification requirement; it reaffirms existing professional and Rule 11 obligations.

Source: Individual Practice Rules of Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst, U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. (eff. Nov. 3, 2025)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Cal. (Gen. Order 210, eff. Jan. 1, 2026): Must identify the AI program used and certify that the litigant checked the document for factual and legal accuracy using traditional means. Spell-checkers, grammar, paraphrasing, and text-polishing tools are not within scope; Rule 9011 governs.

Bankruptcy General Order No. 210 (In re Filings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence), U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, signed November 18, 2025 by Chief Judge Christopher B. Latham and Judge J. Barrett Marum, effective January 1, 2026: "Effective January 1, 2026, any pleading, motion, or paper (whether moving, opposing, or in reply) that the filer prepared in any aspect by using a generative artificial intelligence ('AI') program must be accompanied by an attestation or certification signed by the filer: • Identifying the AI program used; and • Certifying that the filer checked the document for factual and legal accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means. This General Order applies to all filers — whether attorneys or self-represented litigants. Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure continues to apply to all documents filed with the Court. Furthermore, the Court construes each filing as a certification by the person signing a filed document of compliance with Rule 9011(b)." The paired certification form is CSD 5013 (Disclosure and Certification on Generative Artificial Intelligence Use), which the court considers generative AI to be that which creates original content (text or images) in response to a prompt, including the initial drafting and later augmentations; spell checkers, predictive text, grammar checkers, paraphrasing tools, and text polishers are typically not covered.

Source: Bankruptcy General Order No. 210, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Cal., Chief Judge Christopher B. Latham & Judge J. Barrett Marum (signed Nov. 18, 2025; effective Jan. 1, 2026); paired Form CSD 5013

S.D.N.Y.: AI disclosure requirements vary by judge. Judges Broderick and Cronan have confirmed standing orders. Judge Castel has no standing order — the Mata v. Avianca order was case-specific sanctions. Check the assigned judge's individual requirements.

There is no district-wide AI standing order for the S.D.N.Y. Requirements vary by judge. Judges with confirmed AI standing orders include Judge Vernon Broderick and Judge John Cronan. Judge P. Kevin Castel has no AI standing order — his involvement in Mata v. Avianca (2023) produced case-specific sanctions, not a standing order applying to all filings. Attorneys practicing in S.D.N.Y. must check whether the assigned judge has issued an AI-specific order before filing.

Source: Individual judge standing orders — S.D.N.Y. (Broderick, Cronan confirmed; verify assigned judge)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D.N.Y. — Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1(d) (added 2024): Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative AI services) and must review and verify any computer-generated content; the duty ties to the rule's signing obligations. Modeled on the E.D. Tex. local rule.

Local Bankruptcy Rules, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Rule 9011-1 (Signing of Papers), subdivision (d) (added 2024): "Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services). Litigants are cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. If a litigant chooses to employ technology, the litigant continues to be bound by [the signing requirements] and must review and verify any computer-generated content." The accompanying Comment notes subdivision (d) was added in 2024 "in light of the increased use of artificial intelligence in performing legal research and sometimes in drafting papers" and "is based on a rule adopted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas."

Source: Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1(d), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D.N.Y. (added 2024)

Judge Vernon S. Broderick (S.D.N.Y.): Any party using a generative AI tool to prepare a filing must disclose that AI was used and further certify that they have independently reviewed and verified the accuracy of every AI-drafted portion — including all citations, quotations, and legal authority — and that the filing complies with Rule 11. The rule does NOT apply to AI embedded in legal search engines (Westlaw, LexisNexis). A model certification is posted on the court's website.

Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases, Judge Vernon S. Broderick (S.D.N.Y., rev. Oct. 29, 2025), Rule J (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence): "Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used. If generative AI is utilized in the drafting of any documents filed with the Court, the party must further certify in the document that it has independently reviewed and verified the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations, quotations, and legal authority, and that the document complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations. This rule does not apply to information gathered using AI embedded in legal search engines, such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc. Failure to comply with this rule may result in sanctions, the document being stricken, or other remedies that the Court deems appropriate. A model certification may be found on the Court's website."

Source: Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases, Judge Vernon S. Broderick, S.D.N.Y., Rule J (rev. Oct. 29, 2025)

Judge Michael J. Newman (S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton): COMPLETE AI BAN — "No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ('AI') in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court." Sanctions include striking the pleading, economic sanctions, contempt, or dismissal. AI Provision effective Aug. 27, 2025.

Under Section VI of the Standing Order Governing Civil Cases issued by Judge Michael J. Newman (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton), with AI Provision effective August 27, 2025, the order states: "No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ('AI') in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court." Parties and counsel who violate this AI ban "may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal." This is one of the strictest AI-related orders among federal judges as of the verification date — confirm the current text directly with the court before filing.

Source: Standing Order Governing Civil Cases, Section VI, Judge Michael J. Newman, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division at Dayton), AI Provision effective Aug. 27, 2025

S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 (Chief Judge Crane, May 7, 2025): District-wide caution that Rule 11 responsibility applies regardless of AI authorship; sanctions available under Rule 11(c) for inaccurate AI-generated content.

Under General Order 2025-04 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, signed by Chief Judge Randy Crane on May 7, 2025, attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting any pleading, written motion, or other paper drafted using generative AI without checking the submission for accuracy, "as certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer's independent legal judgment." Anyone who signs a filing is held responsible for its contents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 regardless of whether generative AI drafted any portion of that filing. Sanctions available under Rule 11(c) include nonmonetary directives, court-payable penalties, and payment of opposing party fees and expenses.

Source: General Order 2025-04, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Chief Judge Randy Crane (May 7, 2025)

109th JDC (Andrews/Winkler/Crane Counties, TX — Judge Pool): Per-filing certificate required attesting all AI-generated content was verified through traditional (non-AI) sources by a human being, with sanction liability for non-compliance. The order expressly names Claude, Lexis+AI, and Westlaw AI-Assisted Research within its scope.

Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence of the 109th Judicial District Court of Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties, Texas, signed December 6, 2024 by Judge John L. Pool: "All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding sign and submit the attached form, certifying that: 1. all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence were before submission verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a human being, and 2. that the self-represented litigant or attorneys submitting such information understands and acknowledges that they are and will be held responsible and potentially sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply with this Order." The order names ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Claude, Google Copilot, TensorFlow, Open AI, Bing, Lexis+AI, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, and Ask Practical Law AI as example systems within its scope.

Source: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, 109th Judicial District Court, Judge John L. Pool (Dec. 6, 2024)

21st & 335th JDC (Burleson/Lee/Washington Counties, TX — Judges Campbell & Winkelmann): Requires anyone using AI in a court submission to certify that all language, citations, and arguments created or contributed to by generative AI were verified before submission through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a licensed Texas attorney, and to acknowledge responsibility, by sanction, for failure to comply.

Joint Standing Order of the 21st Judicial District and 335th Judicial District Courts of Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties, Texas (signed March 19, 2025; filed March 26, 2025) by Judge Carson Campbell (21st District Court) and Judge John D. Winkelmann (335th District Court): "All attorneys and self-represented litigants who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding sign and submit the attached form certifying that: 1. All language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis created by or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence were before submission verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, and 2. That the person understands and acknowledges that they are and will be held responsible and potentially sanctioned for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply with this Order." The order applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 21st and 335th Judicial Districts. Note the human-verification requirement is specifically by a Texas-licensed attorney, distinguishing this order from the 30th, 90th, 109th, and 394th JDC orders.

Source: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, 21st & 335th Judicial District Courts of Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties, Texas (Mar. 19, 2025)

30th District Court of Wichita County, Texas (Judge McKnight): Requires a signed certification attached to every pleading generated using AI, attesting that all AI-generated content was verified through traditional (non-AI) legal sources before submission. AI use is also prohibited inside the courtroom and court offices.

Under the Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence of the 30th District Court of Wichita County, Texas, signed by Judge McKnight on March 26, 2024, all self-represented litigants and attorneys who use any form of AI for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the order's certification form as an attachment to each pleading generated utilizing AI. The certification attests that (1) "all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence were before submission verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources," and (2) the signer acknowledges responsibility and possible sanctions under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 10, and the inherent power of the Court. Separately, the order prohibits the use of AI in the courtroom or court offices, including AI-based recording or transcription.

Source: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, 30th District Court of Wichita County, Texas, Judge McKnight (Mar. 26, 2024)

394th Judicial District Court (Brewster/Culberson/Hudspeth/Jeff Davis/Presidio Counties, TX — Judge Roy Ferguson): Requires per-filing certification that all AI-generated content was verified using traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a human being before submission.

Under the Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence of the 394th Judicial District Court (covering Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties, Texas), signed by Judge Roy Ferguson on August 1, 2024, all self-represented litigants and attorneys who use any form of AI for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached certification form. The certification attests that (1) "all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence — was before submission to this Court verified as accurate using traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a human being," and (2) the signer acknowledges responsibility and possible sanctions under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and the inherent power of the Court. The order names ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Claude, Google Copilot, TensorFlow, OpenAI, Bing, Lexis+AI, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, and Ask Practical Law AI as example systems within its scope.

Source: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, 394th Judicial District Court, Judge Roy Ferguson (Aug. 1, 2024)

90th JDC (Young & Stephens Counties, TX — Judge Gregory): Per-pleading certificate required for any filing prepared with AI, attesting all AI-generated content was verified through traditional (non-AI) sources before submission; non-compliance carries sanction liability. Separately, AI use is prohibited inside the courtroom and court offices, including AI-based recording or transcription.

Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence of the 90th Judicial District Court for Young and Stephens Counties, Texas, signed February 10, 2026 by Judge Phillip Gregory: "All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in connection with a case shall, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, shall incorporate and certify using the form hereinbelow as a certificate within each pleading generated utilizing artificial intelligence, certifying that; 1. All language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence were, before submission verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and 2. That the person understands and acknowledges that they are and will be held responsible, and potentially sanctioned, for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply with this Order." The order further prohibits the use of artificial intelligence inside the courtroom or court offices, including AI-based recording or transcription from any vantage point.

Source: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, 90th Judicial District Court of Young and Stephens Counties, Texas, Judge Phillip Gregory (Feb. 10, 2026)