ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
1
Date(s)Type of CourtCourtJudgeType of MandateProhibition?Disclosure?Certification?Human Verification?No disclosure of confidential information?Maintain record of prompts?Text of MandateSourcePressNotes
2
Ordered May 30, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Tex.Judge Brantley StarrJudge Specific RequirementsNo.Required.Required.Required via attestation.Not discussed.Not discussed.Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here’s why. These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, 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. A template Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements is provided here.		https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr; https://web.archive.org/web/20230530223247/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-judge-orders-lawyers-sign-ai-pledge-warning-they-make-stuff-up-2023-05-31/; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2023/08/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders; https://www.huntonak.com/en/insights/will-mandatory-generative-ai-use-cerfifications-become-the-norm-in-legal-filings.html Prompted by Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023)?
3
Between Oct. 24, 2023 and Dec. 6, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Tex.Judge Matthew J. KacsmarykJudge Specific RequirementsNo.Required.Required.Required via attestation (using print reporters or traditional legal databases).Not discussed.Not discussed.Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here’s why. These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, 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. A template Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements is provided here.		https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk; https://web.archive.org/web/20231024225514/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk; https://web.archive.org/web/20231207021258/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk
4
Signed June 21, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Tex. Bankruptcy CourtAllGeneral OrderNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required (using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means).Not discussed.Not discussed.IN RE: PLEADINGS USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
If any portion of a pleading or other paper filed on the Court’s docket has been drafted utilizing generative artificial intelligence, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard, the Court requires that all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such pleadings or other papers verify that any language that was generated was checked for accuracy, using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means. Artificial intelligence 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 heed these instructions may subject attorneys or pro se litigants to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011.		https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf
5
Announced Oct. 30, 2023 (signed by Judge Gilstrap); In effect Dec. 1, 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Tex.AllDistrict Court RuleNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.LOCAL RULE CV-11 Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Documents
(g) Use of Technology by Pro Se Litigants. 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 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and must review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards. See also Local Rule AT-3(m).
LOCAL RULE AT-3 Standards of Practice to be Observed by Attorneys
Attorneys who appear in civil and criminal cases in this court shall comply with the following standards of practice in this district:
(m) If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal judgment, believes that the client is best served by the use of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services), then the lawyer is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer’s most important asset – the exercise of independent legal judgment. If a lawyer chooses to employ technology in representing a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Local Rule AT-3, and all other applicable standards of practice and must review and verify any computergenerated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards. 		https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akpeawdzqpr/11222023ai_edtx.pdf; https://txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/HR_Docs/TXED%20Local%20Rules%202023.pdf; https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=civil-rules https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-appeals-court-proposes-lawyers-certify-review-ai-use-filings-2023-11-22/
6
Proposed Nov. 21, 2023; Accepting public comment through Jan. 4, 2024U.S. Federal Court5th Cir.AllAppellate Court RuleNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.PROPOSED Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3
32.3. Certificate of Compliance. See Form 6 in the Appendix of Forms to the Fed. R. App. P. Additionally, counsel and unrepresented filers must further certify that no generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting the document presented for filing, or to the extent such a program was used, all generated text, including all citations and legal analysis, has been reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human. A material misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance may result in striking the document and sanctions against the person signing the document.		https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mopajaxmava/11222023ai_5th.pdfhttps://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-appeals-court-proposes-lawyers-certify-review-ai-use-filings-2023-11-22/
7
Ordered June 6, 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Pa.Senior District Judge Michael BaylsonStanding OrderNo.Required.Required.Required (for each and every citation to the law or the record).Not discussed.Not discussed.STANDING ORDER RE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE BAYLSON
If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper, filed with the Court, and assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson, MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing, and CERTIFY, that each and every citation to the law or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.		https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges-info/senior-judges/michael-m-baylson; https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2023/08/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders
8
Revised Oct. 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Pa.Judge Gene E.K. PratterGeneral Trial and Pretrial ProceduresNo.Required.Required.Required (for each and every citation to the law or the record).Not discussed.Not discussed.VI. Artificial Intelligence
Judge Pratter requires that counsel (or a party representing himself or herself) disclose whether he or she has used generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, including in correspondence with the Court. He or she must, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that generative AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing or correspondence and certify that each and every citation to the law or the record in the filing has been verified as authentic and accurate.

Motion for pro hac vice must be accompanied by the affidavit or similar declaration of each attorney being proposed for pro hac vice admission in which the affiant/declarant includes the following information and undertakings:
d. That, if the affiant/declarant has used generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, he or she must, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that generative AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing and certify that each and every citation to the law or the record in the filing has been verified as authentic and accurate;		https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/prapol2.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
9
New AI Provision Effective as of July 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtS.D. OhioJudge Michael J. NewmanStanding Order Governing Civil CasesYes.N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AVI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION
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 their 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 of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.		https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/FPNewman; https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%207.14.23%20Final.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
10
New AI Provision Effective as of July 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtS.D. OhioJudge Michael J. NewmanStanding Order Governing Criminal CasesYes.N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AVI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION
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 their 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 of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.		https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/FPNewman; https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%207.14.23%20Final.pdf
11
Revised July 29, 2023U.S. Federal CourtS.D.N.Y.Judge Arun SubramanianIndividual Practices in Civil CasesNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.F. Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools. Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, the procedural history of the case, and any cited legal authorities. Use of ChatGPT or other such tools is not prohibited, but counsel must at all times personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means. At all times, counsel—and specifically designated Lead Trial Counsel—bears responsibility for any filings made by the party that counsel represents. https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20230802202223/https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
12
Ordered Aug. 11, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Ill.Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. FuentesStanding OrderNo.Required.Typical Rule 11 certification.Required via Rule 11 certification (by "living, breathing, thinking human being[]").Not discussed.Not discussed.The Court has adopted a new requirement in the fast-growing and fast-changing area of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and its use in the practice of law. The requirement is as follows: Any party using any generative AI tool in the preparation or drafting of documents for filing with the Court must disclose in the filing that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used to conduct legal research and/or to draft the document. Further, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continues to apply, and the Court will continue to construe all filings as a certification, by the person signing the filed document and after reasonable inquiry, of the matters set forth in the rule, including but not limited to those in Rule 11(b)(2). Parties should not assume that mere reliance on an AI tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry, because, to quote a phrase, “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that …. This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.” 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (MetroGoldwyn-Mayer 1968). One way to jeopardize the mission of federal courts is to use an AI tool to generate legal research that includes “bogus judicial decisions” cited for substantive propositions of law. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 3696209, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) (issuing show cause order where “[a] submission filed by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to nonexistent cases.”); Mata, supra, Attorney Affidavit (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023) (D.E. 32-1) (responding to show cause order by stating that the case authorities found by the district court to be nonexistent “were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content.”). Just as the Court did before the advent of AI as a tool for legal research and drafting, the Court will continue to presume that the Rule 11 certification is a representation by filers, as living, breathing, thinking human beings, that they themselves have read and analyzed all cited authorities to ensure that such authorities actually exist and that the filings comply with Rule 11(b)(2). https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20Order%20For%20Civil%20Cases%20Before%20Judge%20Fuentes%20revision%208-11-23.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20231206000624/https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20Order%20For%20Civil%20Cases%20Before%20Judge%20Fuentes%20revision%208-11-23.pdf https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2023/08/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders
13
On or before Nov. 8, 2023U.S. Federal CourtW.D. Okla.Judge Scott L. Palk Chambers Rules: AI GuidelinesNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS – GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Chambers of United States District Judge Scott L. Palk
1. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. The unrepresented party or attorney must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.
2. If generative AI is utilized in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court, the unrepresented party or attorney will be held responsible for the contents thereof, in accordance with Rule 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and/or attorney discipline.
3. The failure to make the disclosure and certification described in paragraph 1 may result in the imposition of sanctions. 		https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/rules-procedures/chambers-rules/; https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
14
Signed July 25, 2023; Effective Sept. 1, 2023U.S. Federal CourtW.D. Okla. Bankruptcy CourtAllStanding OrderNo.Required.Attestation required.Required via attestation (using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means).Required via attestation.Not discussed.IN RE: PLEADINGS USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Effective September 1, 2023, any document filed with the Court that has been drafted utilizing a generative artificial intelligence program, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard, must be accompanied by an attestation: (1) identifying the program used and the specific portions of text for which a generative artificial intelligence program was utilized; (2) certifying the document was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means; and (3) certifying the use of such program has not resulted in the disclosure of any confidential information to any unauthorized party. The Court finds such attestation necessary because as noted by Hon. Brantley Starr: "While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule oflaw, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or ... the truth)." Hon. Brantley Starr, Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence, www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr (last visited June 22, 2023).
Additionally, Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure continues to apply to all documents filed with the Court, and the Court construes all filings as a certification by the person signing the filed document of compliance with Rule 9011 (b ). 		https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
15
On or before Nov. 8, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Ill.Magistrate Judge Jeffrey ColeStanding Order (adopting Judge Starr's Standing Order)No.Required (via adoption of Judge Starr's Standing Order).Typical Rule 11 certification.Required via Rule 11 certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.THE USE OF “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” IN THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THIS COURT
I have adopted the following Standing Order regarding the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the event AI is used in the preparation of documents in cases assigned to this court. The Rule is based upon the Rule adopted by Judge Brantley Starr. See Hon. Brantley Starr, “Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence [Standing Order],” (N.D. Tex.) (unlike attorneys, “generative artificial intelligence … hold[s] no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth.”)) (www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr).The Standing Order ofthis Court provides that:
Any party using AI in the preparation of materials submitted to the court must disclose in the filing that an AI tool was used to conduct legal research and/or was used in any way in the preparation of the submitted document. Parties should not assume that mere reliance on an AI tool will be presumed to constitute reasonable inquiry. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 11, will apply.
The mission of the federal courts to ascertain truth is obviously compromised by the use of an AI tool that generates legal research that includes false or inaccurate propositions of law and/or purport to cite non-existent judicial decisions cited for substantive propositions of law. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 3696209, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) (issuing show cause order where “[a] submission filed by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss [wa]s replete with citations to nonexistent cases.”); Mata, supra, Attorney Affidavit (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023) (D.E. 32-1) (responding to show cause order by stating that the case authorities found by the district court to be nonexistent “were provided by Chat GPT which also provided its legal source and assured the reliability of its content.”).
In any case in which Artificial Intelligence was employed in the research and/or drafting of any document submitted for filing in support of any proposition advanced to the court as purported authority in support of or opposition to any point or conclusion in the case, Rule 11 and the other rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will apply, and a certification on a filing will be deemed as a representation by the filer that they have read and analyzed all cited authorities to ensure that such authorities actually exist and that counsel actually have assessed and considered the cited case or other authority offered in support or in contravention of the particular proposition.		https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?u5tStFh/TfU=; https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Cole/Artificial%20Intelligence%20standing%20order.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20231114051334/https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Cole/Artificial%20Intelligence%20standing%20order.pdf https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
16
On or before Nov. 8, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD. Haw.Judge Leslie E. KobayashiJudge's Requirements: AI GuidelinesNo.Required.Required.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS – GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Chambers of United States District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi
1. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. The unrepresented party or attorney must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.
2. If generative AI is utilized in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court, the unrepresented party or attorney will be held responsible for the contents thereof, in accordance with Rule 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and/or attorney discipline.
3. The failure to make the disclosure and certification described in paragraph 1 may result in the imposition of sanctions.		https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/judges/3; https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20231113194955/https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
17
Signed Nov. 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD. Haw.AllGeneral OrderNo.Disclosure of reliance on an unverified source required via declaration.Declaration required.Required via declaration.Not discussed.Not discussed.IN RE: USE OF UNVERIFIED SOURCES
Briefs and memoranda generated by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms (for example, ChatGPT or Bard) and online briefs or memoranda drafted by persons compensated to produce materials not tailored to specific cases (collectively, "unverified sources"), have increased the court's concern abotu the reliability and accuracy of filings and other court submissions. In partiuclar, the court is concerned abotu whether factual or legal citations or references in court filings and submissions have been properly vetted by counsel and pro se parties. For example, courts sometimes receive briefs containing fictitious case cites either generated by AI or by human authors.
To address these concerns, if any counsel or pro se party submits to the court any filing or submission generated by an unverified source, that attorney or pro se party must submit a declaration concurrently with that material captioned "Reliance on Unverified Source" that: (1) advises the court that counsel or the pro se party has relied on one or more unverified sources; and (2) verifies that the counsel or pro se party has confirmed that any such material is not fictitious. The scope of the required declaration is that required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This order does not affect the use of basic research tools such as Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg, and no declaration is required if all sources can be located on such well-accepted basic research tools.		https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf
18
On or before Nov. 8, 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Mo.AllOnline FAQYes, for self- represented litigantsN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ASelf-Represented Litigants (SRL)
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (including ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, and Google Bard):
No portion of any pleading, written motion, or other paper may be drafted by any form of generative artificial intelligence. By presenting to the Court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).		https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/self-represented-litigants-srlhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
19
Revised Nov. 13, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD.N.J.Judge Evelyn PadinGeneral Trial and Pretrial ProceduresNo.Required.Required.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.B. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“GAI”)
The use of any GAI (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard) for any court filings requires a mandatory disclosure/certification that: (1) identifies the GAI program; (2) identifies the portion of the filing drafted by GAI; and (3) certifies that the GAI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability.		https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
20
Revised Nov. 22, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Cal.Judge Araceli Martínez-OlguínStanding Order for Civil CasesNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Required.4. Artificial Intelligence (AI). Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations in any submission (including filings, demonstratives, evidence, or oral argument), consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance. Use of ChatGPT or other such tools is not prohibited, but counsel must at all times personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any content generated by these tools. At all times, counsel—and specifically designated lead trial counsel—bears responsibility for any submission made by the party that the attorney represents. Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or comply with this verification requirement will be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event those records become relevant at any point. https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/AMO-Civil-Standing-Order-11.22.2023-FINAL.pdf
21
22
Ordered June 8, 2023Other U.S. CourtU.S. Court of International TradeJudge Stephen VadenNo.Required.Required.Not discussed.Required via certification.Not discussed.ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Parties must conform to many rules when they file briefs in a case before the Court of International Trade. For instance, briefs must state with particularity the grounds for seeking a desired order and make "the legal argument necessary to support it." USCIT Rule 7(b)(l)(B). They must follow certain requirements of form, including those that govern the use of captions, exhibits, and paragraphing. USCIT Rule 7(b)(2); USCIT Rule 10. However, perhaps the most important of these rules are those that concern confidential or business proprietary information. The Court has taken special care to ensure that bringing a claim will not result in the disclosure of sensitive non-public information owned by any party before it. Accordingly, the Court requires that briefs containing confidential or business proprietary information "must identify that information by enclosing it in brackets," that parties must file a non-confidential version of such a brief and redact the bracketed information, and that recipients of the confidential brief may not disclose its contents to any party not authorized to receive such information. USCIT Rule 5(g). In particular, an attorney may only receive confidential or business proprietary information if he or she has filed a Business Proprietary Information Certification and received an order from the Court granting access to such information. USCIT Rule 73.2(c)(2).
Generative artificial intelligence programs that supply natural language answers to user prompts, such as ChatGPT or Google Bard, create novel risks to the security of confidential information. Users having "conversations" with these programs may include confidential information in their prompts, which in turn may result in the corporate owner of the program retaining access to the confidential information. Although the owners of generative artificial intelligence programs may make representations that they do not retain information supplied by users, their programs "learn" from every user conversation and cannot distinguish which conversations may contain confidential information. In recognition of this risk, corporations have prohibited their employees from using generative artificial intelligence programs. See, e.g., Samsung Bans Staff's AI Use After Spotting ChatGPT Data Leah, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/samsung-bans-chatgpt-and-other-generative-ai-use-by-staff-after-leak (last visited June 8, 2023).
Because generative artificial intelligence programs challenge the Court's ability to protect confidential and business proprietary information from access by unauthorized parties, it is hereby:
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;
and it is further
ORDERED that, following the filing of such notice, any party may file with the Court any motion provided for by statute or the Rules of the Court of International Trade seeking any relief the party believes the facts disclosed warrant. 		https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2023/08/judges-guide-attorneys-on-ai-pitfalls-with-standing-orders
23
24
Signed June 9, 2023 (by Judge Roy S. Ferguson)U.S. State CourtTexas 394th Judicial District CourtAllStanding OrderNo.Required through certification.Required.Required (by Texas-licensed attorney using traditional [non-AI] legal sources).Not discussed.Not discussed.STANDING ORDER REGARDING USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
This Standing Order of the 394th Judicial District Court applies to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 394th Judicial District Court of Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. Nothing in this Order should be construed as to relieve an attorney or selfrepresented litigant of any legal or ethical obligation required by law, statute, or rule, including rules of procedure, evidence, or the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Generative artificial intelligence systems (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI,, Google Bard, TensorFlow, OpenAI, Bing, and many others) are being incorporated into common professional use. The abilities of these systems vary widely depending on the application, version, and specific underlying technology used. While the technology is developing quickly, it is currently unreliable and prone to bias, and often fabricates information. The creators of these systems are not attorneys of record, licensed and in good standing to practice law in the State of Texas, and are not bound by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
WHEREAS the signing of a pleading or motion in Texas certifies that each claim, defense, or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
WHEREAS courts have the inherent power to sanction parties for violation of rules, orders, standing orders, and statutory obligations; and
WHEREAS a court on its own initiative may direct a court participant to show cause why his or her conduct has not violated a rule, order, standing order or statutory obligation;
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
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 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.
This Order is effective immediately for all cases filed or pending in the 394th District Court.
This Order remains in effect until rescinded or replaced by this Court. This Order is subject to modification or amendment by the undersigned at any time.
This Order shall be posted on the Court’s website at www.Texas394th.com, and the district clerks of Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties are hereby directed to file this Order with the Office of Court Administration and in the county administrative orders of the Court, and to post a file-marked copy of this Order as a Public Notice at the County Courthouse.		https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/2f8cb9d7-adb6-4232-a36b-27b72fdfcd38/downloads/Standing%20order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Int.pdf?ver=1697636353579https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
25
26
Ordered and in effect June 23, 2023Foreign CourtCourt of King's Bench of ManitobaAllPractice DirectionNo.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.RE: USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT SUBMISSIONS
With the still novel but rapid development of artificial intelligence, it is apparent that artificial intelligence might be used in court submissions. While it is impossible at this time to completely and accurately predict how artificial intelligence may develop or how to exactly define the responsible use of artificial intelligence in court cases, there are legitimate concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information generated from the use of artificial intelligence. To address these concerns, when artificial intelligence has been used in the preparation of materials filed with the court, the materials must indicate how artificial intelligence was used.		https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/2045/practice_direction_-_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_court_submissions.pdfhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
27
Dated June 26, 2023Foreign CourtSupreme Court of YukonAllPractice DirectionNo.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Artificial intelligence is rapidly developing. Cases in other jurisdictions have arisen where it has been used for legal research or submissions in court. There are legitimate concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information generated from the use of artificial intelligence.
As a result, if any counsel or party relies on artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT or any other artificial intelligence platform) for their legal research or submissions in any matter and in any form before the Court, they must advise the Court of the tool used and for what purpose.		https://www.yukoncourts.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/GENERAL-29%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf
28
29
Decided August 22, 2023Foreign CourtDelhi High CourtN/AJudgmentChatGPT responses "cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law."Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.28. The above responses from ChatGPT as also the one relied upon by the Plaintiffs shows that the said tool cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors including the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data etc. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. generated by AI chatbots. Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128131570/