ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
1
State(s)/ CountryDate(s)Type of CourtCourtJudgeType of MandateProhibition?Disclosure?Certification?Human Verification?No disclosure of confidential information?Maintain record of prompts?Text of MandateSourcePress
2
U.S. Federal Courts
3
ArizonaOrdered Sept. 1, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD. Ariz.Judge James A. SotoCase-Specific OrderNo.Required.Required.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)
As to any case assigned to United States District Judge Soto (including those referred to a Magistrate Judge), IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1) If any portion of a pleading or other document filed on this Court’s docket has been drafted (in whole or in part) using generative artificial intelligence, including, but not limited to ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard, all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such pleadings or other documents shall verify that any language that was generated in any form by AI was checked for accuracy by using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means by a human being. AI systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, factual or legal accuracy, or the laws and Constitution of the United States, and are not factually or legally trustworthy sources without verification by a human being.
(2) If any portion of a pleading or any other document filed on this Court’s docket has been drafted (in whole or in part) using AI, all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such pleadings or other documents shall also simultaneously file a separate document entitled “Notice of Use of Artificial Intelligence” that: (a) identifies the AI program used and specifically identify all specific portions (i.e., citing page and line numbers) that have been drafted (in whole or in part) by AI; and (b) certify that any language that was generated in any form by AI was verified for accuracy by using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means by a human being. 		Cowan v. Board of Immigration Appeals, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-JAS, Dkt. No. 15.https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/arizona
4
CaliforniaUpdated Mar. 1, 2024U.S. Federal CourtC.D. Cal.Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.Standing Order for Civil CasesNo,Required via separate declaration.Required via separate declaration.Required via separate declaration.Not discussed.Not discussed.5. Filing Requirements
c. 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. 		https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SB/AD/1.%20Civil%20Standing%20Order%20%283.1.24%29%20%5bFinal%5d.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/california
5
CaliforniaEffective before/on Apr. 26, 2024U.S. Federal CourtC.D. Cal.Magistrate Judge Rozella A. OliverJudge's ProceduresNo,Required via separate declaration.Required via separate declaration.Required via separate declaration.Not discussed.Not discussed.13. 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 contect is accurate and complies with the filer's Rule 11 obligations.https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-rozella-oliver; https://web.archive.org/web/20231229233815/https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-rozella-oliver
6
CaliforniaOrdered/Effective July 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Cal.Magistrate Judge Peter H. KangStanding Order for Civil CasesNo.Required.Typical Rule 11 certification.Required by pro se party or counsel.Required.Required ("keep[] records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any such third-party AI tools").[T]the Court recognizes that generative AI (including related technologies and tools) are an evolving area impacting the practice of law and clients. In addition to issues relating to electronic discovery, 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.
...
C. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings with the Court
The Court is aware of recent developments regarding generative AI and its impact on litigation. Accordingly, the Court provides the following guidance for parties and their counsel in this evolving area. If parties have specific proposals for modifying, adding to, or addressing AIrelated issues in their matter, counsel are encouraged and expected to raise such proposals as part of the case management procedures above and as appropriate during the progress of an action.
AI and specifically generative AI (as referred to herein) denote a category of automated tools that are capable of formulating unique content, such as text that has not been expressly programmed into the computer system at issue. Generative AI is thus distinguishable from other categories of AI, which may operate based on pre-established algorithms and, of particular relevance to the administration of justice, do not generate original content or text. The Court recognizes that generative AI, AI tools, and the applications using such technology are evolving areas, with changing terminology and technical approaches. Therefore, these provisions are to be reasonably construed as these AI tools develop further, with the overarching purpose of the provisions in mind. At one end of the spectrum of available software tools, the provisions herein do not apply to the use of applications, solutions, or tools which implicate AI for tasks unrelated to or at best tangentially related to the practice of law and not involved in or responsible for the creation or drafting of text for submissions to the Court. For example, these provisions do not apply to counsel’s use of software, applications, or vendors’ offerings which may in some way incorporate a technology labeled as “AI” in performing law firm or lawyer administrative or ministerial tasks (e.g., timekeeping, invoicing, HR, accounting, business development, and similar back office or business of law solutions). Nor do these provisions apply to counsel’s or a pro se party’s use of traditional legal research, word processing, spellchecking, grammar checking, or formatting software tools (e.g., Lexis, Westlaw, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat).
AI and Briefs/Pleadings Filed with the Court: As a baseline matter, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the Court’s Education Guidelines as set forth in ESI Guideline 3.01, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidelines, it is expected that counsel for the parties, including all counsel who have appeared, as well as all others responsible for making representations to the Court or opposing counsel (whether or not they make an appearance) and pro se parties, shall competently and responsibly use automated, computer-based software or hardware applications in drafting briefs, pleadings, or other documents to be submitted to the Court, whether such tools are labelled as AI, generative AI, language model, natural language processing tool, machine learning tool, artificial neural network, deep learning neural network, or any other automated generator of text. Counsel and pro se parties shall make use of such tools with competent training, knowledge, and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools. Counsel are expected to abide by existing and evolving California State Bar guidance and advisory opinions on the use of AI in the legal profession, and counsel should conduct themselves in a manner consistent with ABA Resolution 604’s (Feb. 6, 2023) admonishment regarding accountability of individuals and organizations for any use of AI products, systems, and capabilities (and the Resolution’s provisions regarding operators of AI systems and capabilities). See https://perma.cc/A6WC-6X6P. As with any prudent approach in an evolving area of law, counsel and pro se parties are expected to be competent and knowledgeable about evolving judicial and legal standards in the use of generative AI tools, including case law and opinions addressing such issues (not limited to case law imposing sanctions for failure to use generative AI in an ethical manner).
Any brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court the text of which was created or drafted with any use of an AI tool shall be identified as such in its title or pleading caption, in a table preceding the body text of such brief or pleading, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the brief, pleading, or document. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient to identify, if requested by the Court, those portions of the text of a pleading, brief, or document submitted to the Court which was created or drafted by an AI tool. Parties and counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the Court any briefs, pleadings, materials, other documents, or argument which contain AI-hallucinated citations to law, case or legal citations which are fictitious or nonexistent, or any uncorroboratable assertions of law or fact. A pro se party or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a case or legal citation (or assertion of fact) created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions.
AI and Evidence: The Court recognizes that, as AI tools proliferate generally in society, there may arise situations in which AI-generated documents or materials (for example, created by a Party prior to the commencement of litigation) are or may become exhibits, evidence, or the subject of factual disputes in an action. In such situations, a pro se party or counsel shall follow the procedures below with regard to proffering evidence, documents, or other factual material which that Party or counsel knows or has any reasonable basis to believe is or was created in whole by a generative AI or any AI tool for creating text, documents, images, video, graphics, audio, or any other material:
1) If a Party or counsel seeks to file or otherwise present to the Court any such AI-generated evidentiary material, no such material shall be considered unless previously disclosed or produced timely in discovery (or, with respect to demonstrative exhibits, by the deadline for exchange or disclosure of demonstrative exhibits).
2) Contemporaneous with the production or disclosure of any such AI-generated evidentiary material, counsel shall serve a Notice to the opposing Party or side identifying such material with sufficient specificity to locate it (such as by Bates or production number, by attaching a copy to such Notice, by promptly responding to any request for counsel to provide a copy of such material, or by any other means which reasonably permits the other Party or side to identify and locate the material promptly). Any such AI-generated material which does not have an accompanying Notice shall not be considered by the Court. Absent stipulation between the Parties or other order of the Court on scheduling, at the time of the submission or filing of any such material to the Court, the Party or counsel proffering such AI-generated material to the Court shall file and serve any declarations, affidavits, or sworn testimony to address the material’s authenticity under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3) If a Party or counsel chooses to use an AI or other automated tool as part of a process for creating exhibits, demonstratives, or other material to be filed or presented to the Court, they shall only do so consistent with their ethical and legal obligations and shall use such tools responsibly and with competent training, knowledge, and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools. Parties and counsel shall not file, proffer, or otherwise present to the Court exhibits, demonstratives, or other evidentiary or factual material which contain AI-hallucinated assertions of fact, uncorroboratable statements as to factual matters or evidence, or any fictitious or non-existent references or citations to law or fact. A pro se party’s or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a basis for an assertion of fact or evidence created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions. Any exhibit, demonstrative, or other material to be filed or presented to the Court which was created or drafted with any assistance or use of an AI tool shall be identified as such in its title or caption, in a table preceding the body of exhibit, demonstrative, or other material, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the document or material. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient to identify, if requested by the Court, those portions of that exhibit, document, or material created or drafted by use of an AI tool.
AI and Confidentiality: Third parties and non-parties to an action may own and operate publicly available AI tools such as large language models, machine learning tools, artificial neural networks, deep learning neural networks, and all other forms of generative AI for creating text, documents, or other materials. The owner or operator of any such AI tool may have access to, ownership of, or otherwise retain information input or submitted to such AI tool, including queries or prompts. Accordingly, in the course of preparing filings with the Court or other documents for submission in an action, counsel and Parties choosing to use an AI or other automated tools shall fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations (including issues relating to privilege) in their use, disclosure to, submission to, or other interaction with any such AI tools. Such counsel and parties using any AI tool shall maintain records sufficient to establish and corroborate their compliance with this Standing Order, if asked by the Court, such as by keeping records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any such third-party AI tools.		https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/kang-phk/Civil-Standing-Order-PHK-001.pdf; https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/kang-phk/Civil-Standing-Order-PHK-001.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/california
7
CaliforniaOrdered/Effective Nov. 7, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Cal.Judge Rita F. LinStanding Order for Civil CasesNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required.Not discussed.Not discussed.USE OF CHATGPT OR OTHER GENERATIVE AI TOOLS
Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of ChatGPT or other such generative artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings.		https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20231117020843/https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/california
8
CaliforniaRevised Nov. 22, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Cal.Judge Araceli Martínez-OlguínStanding Order for Civil CasesNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Required ("maintain[] records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools").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
9
ColoradoFeb. 2, 2024U.S. Federal CourtD. Colo.Judge S. Kato CrewsStanding Order for Civil CasesNo,Required to certify no or some language was drafted by AI.Required.Required via Certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.Certification Re: the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Drafting
In addition to a Certification of Conferral, every motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and any opposed motion (to include the corresponding response and reply), shall contain a Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative artificial intelligence (AI) (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.) in preparing the filing.
The preparer of the filing must certify either that (a) no portion of the filing was drafted by AI, or that (b) any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human being) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human being for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases and attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited authority. The Court will strike any filing from a party who fails to include this certification in the above-mentioned motions. 		http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases_v2.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/colorado
10
HawaiiEffective Sept. 29, 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; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/hawaii
11
HawaiiSigned Nov. 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD. Haw.All — Chief Judge Derrick K. Watson, Judge J. Michael Seabright, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi, Judge Jill A. OtakeGeneral 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
12
IllinoisEffective July 21, 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; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/illinois
13
IllinoisEffective Apr. 3, 2024U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Ill.Judge Sharon Johnson ColemanMemorandum of Law RequirementsYes, AI prohibited in drafting. N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AMemorandum of Law Requirements
Parties may not use Artificial Intelligence to draft their memoranda or as authority to support their motions. 		https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-cmp-detail.aspx?cmpid=626https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/illinois
14
IllinoisOrdered 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
15
IllinoisEffective December 19, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. Ill.Judge Iain D. JohnstonStanding OrderNo.Not discussed.Typical Rule 11(b) and 26(g) certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Some of the Court's standing orders address the Court's idiosyncrasies, such as its procedures for filing summary judgment motions. But other standing orders—which are unfortunately necessary—are often terse reminders that all filers need to follow statutes, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court believes that a reasonable standing order on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) would fall into the latter category. So here's this Court's standing order on AI: Anyone—counsel and unrepresented parties alike—using AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule, including any applicable ethical rule. See Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary?, 107 Judicature 68 (2023).https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?Bt1LmR2QgBbCj2VD6w9tXA==https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/illinois
16
MichiganProposed Dec. 4, 2023; Accepting comments through Jan. 19, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Mich.AllPROPOSED Local RuleNo.Required.Attestation required.Required via attestation.Not discussed.Not discussed.PROPOSED LR 5.1 Filing of Papers
(a) Papers presented for filing must comply with the following:
(4) Disclosing Use of Artificial Intelligence.
(A) “Artificial intelligence” or “AI” means the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.
(B) “Generative artificial intelligence” or “Generative AI” means artificial intelligence that is capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.
(C) If generative AI is used to compose or draft any paper presented for filing, the filer must disclose its use and attest that citations of authority have been verified by a human being by using print volumes or traditional legal databases and that the language in the paper has been checked for accuracy by the filer.		https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdfhttps://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2023/12/articles/artificial-intelligence/federal-judges-start-cracking-down-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-court-filings/
17
MissouriEffective Aug. 23, 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Mo.AllOnline FAQYes, generative AI prohibited 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; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/missouri
18
MontanaSigned June 22, 2023U.S. Federal CourtD. Mont.Judge Donald W. MolloyIndividual's Pro Hac Vice Admission OrderYes, AI automated drafting programs prohibited.N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AUse of artificial intelligence automated drafting programs, such as Chat GPT, is prohibited.https://web.archive.org/web/20240202213650/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mtd.73612/gov.uscourts.mtd.73612.8.0.pdfhttps://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/29/federal-judge-forbids-use-of-chatgpt-by-out-of-state-lawyers/; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/montana
19
New JerseyRevised 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.pdf; https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/content/evelyn-padinhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ai-standing-orders-proliferate-as-federal-courts-forge-own-paths
20
New YorkRevised 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
21
OhioEffective Dec. 31, 2023U.S. Federal CourtN.D. OhioJudge Christopher A. BoykoStanding Order - Generative AIYes, AI banned.Duty to immediately inform the Court if use of AI in any filed document is discovered.N/AN/AN/AN/ACOURT’S STANDING ORDER ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE AI
Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and the authority of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf; https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-christopher-boyko https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/ohio
22
OhioNew AI Provision Effective as of July 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtS.D. OhioJudge Michael J. NewmanStanding Order Governing Civil CasesYes, AI banned.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
23
OhioNew AI Provision Effective as of July 14, 2023U.S. Federal CourtS.D. OhioJudge Michael J. NewmanStanding Order Governing Criminal CasesYes, AI banned.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
24
OklahomaEffective Sept. 6, 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; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/oklahoma
25
OklahomaSigned 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; https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/oklahoma
26
OklahomaEffective Sept. 27, 2023U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Okla.Magistrate Judge Jason A. RobertsonAI Guidelines for all Criminal and Civil CasesNo.Required.Required.Required by unrepresented party or attorney.Not discussed.Not discussed.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.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf; https://web.archive.org/web/20240101000000*/https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/oklahoma
27
PennsylvaniaOrdered 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
28
PennsylvaniaRevised Feb. 1, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Pa.Senior District Judge Michael BaylsonPretrial and Trial Procedures - Civil CasesNo.Required.Required.Required (for each and every citation to the law or the record).Not discussed.Not discussed.J. Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)
1. 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/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/baypol.pdf
29
PennsylvaniaRevised 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
30
TexasOrdered 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
31
TexasBetween 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
32
TexasSigned 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
33
TexasAnnounced 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/
34
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, FloridaProposed Nov. 21, 2023; Accepting public comment through Jan. 4, 2024U.S. Federal Court5th Cir.AllPROPOSED Appellate 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.pdf; Submitted Comments Compiled (https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/submitted-comments-compiled.pdf?sfvrsn=c3a9c92d_8)https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-appeals-court-proposes-lawyers-certify-review-ai-use-filings-2023-11-22/
35
TexasOrdered Dec. 6, 2023U.S. Federal CourtW.D. Tex.Judge Fred BieryCase-Specific OrderNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required via signature.Not discussed.Not discussed.6. In this modern environment of artificial intelligence, counsel are reminded of traditional obligations of professional responsibility to be honest with the Court and opposing counsel, regardless of drafting methodology employed. The signature of counsel on all pleadings constitutes an affirmation that all of the pleading contents have been validated for accuracy and authenticity.Montez v. Esparza, Case No. 5:23-cv-01483, Dkt. No. 7
https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/texas
36
VirginiaRevised Dec. 1, 2023; filed Feb. 9, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Va.Judge Henry E. HudsonCase-Specific OrderNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.C. Use of Artificial Intelligence
Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.		Kelly v. Altria Client Services, LLC et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00725, Dkt. No. 27-1 (Feb. 9, 2024)
https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/virginia
37
VirginiaOrdered Jan. 26, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Va.Judge M. Hannah LauckCase-Specific OrderNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.D. Use of Artificial Intelligence
11. Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.		Beckford v. Elevance Health, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00828, Dkt. No. 19https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/virginia
38
VirginiaOrdered Jan. 29, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Va.Judge David J. NovakCase-Specific OrderNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.Use of Artificial Intelligence
23. Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.		Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581, Dkt. No. 147https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/virginia
39
VirginiaOrdered Jan. 10, 2024U.S. Federal CourtE.D. Va.Judge Roderick C. YoungCase-Specific OrderNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.Use of Artificial Intelligence
35. Should any party utilize artificial intelligence for the preparation of any filing, they must identify the use of the artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.		Jcai v. Wiseleap Solutions, Case No. 3:23-cv-350, Dkt. No. 32https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/virginia
40
United StatesOrdered Mar. 21, 2024U.S. Federal CourtU.S. Court of International TradeJudge Claire R. KellyOrder on Artificial IntelligenceNo.Required.Required.Not discussed.Required via certification.Not discussed.ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
For background on this addition to the standard chambers procedures for cases before Judge Claire R. Kelly, please refer to the order by Judge Stephen A. Vaden of
June 8, 2023. It is hereby:
ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Kelly 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 portion 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_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf
41
United StatesOrdered Mar. 20, 2024U.S. Federal CourtU.S. Court of International TradeSenior Judge Jane A. RestaniOrder on Artificial IntelligenceNo.Required.Required.Not discussed.Required via certification.Not discussed.ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
For background on this addition to the standard chambers procedures for cases before Judge Jane A. Restani, please refer to the order by Judge Stephen A. Vaden of June 8, 2023. It is hereby:
ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Restani 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 portion 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/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf; https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/content/senior-judge-jane-restani
42
United StatesOrdered June 8, 2023U.S. Federal CourtU.S. Court of International TradeJudge Stephen VadenOrder on Artificial IntelligenceNo.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
43
U.S. State Courts
44
IllinoisEntered Feb. 14, 2024U.S. State CourtCircuit Court of Cook County, IllinioisJudge Gerald ClearyStanding Order - Trial SectionNo.Required in writing on the submitted document.Not discussed.Required via disclosure.Not discussed.Not discussed.1. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI):
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. 		https://www.cookcountycourt.org/judge/cleary-gerald; https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-02-14%20-%20Law%20-%20Cleary%20-%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Jury%20Trials_1.pdf?VersionId=52.h8FUkpiXjregHJvFdSuOJhYBlw9KZ; https://www.cookcountycourt.org/judge/cleary-gerald https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/illinois
45
New YorkEffective Feb. 1, 2024U.S. State CourtErie County Supreme CourtJudge Mark J. GrisantiJudge RulesNo.Required.Attestation required.Required via attestation.Not discussed.Not discussed.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
If you are using Artificial Intelligence please be aware of the following:
(A) “Artificial intelligence” or “AI” means the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.
(B) “Generative artificial intelligence” or “Generative AI” means artificial intelligence that is capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.
(C) If generative AI is used to compose or draft any paper presented for filing, the filer must disclose its use and attest that citations of authority have been verified by a human being by using print volumes or traditional legal databases and that the language in the paper has been checked for accuracy by the filer. 		https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeGrisanti2024.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/new-york
46
New YorkEffective Feb. 1, 2024U.S. State CourtErie County Supreme Court, Commercial DivisionJudge Emilio ColaiacovoJudge RulesNo.Required.Required.Required via certification.Not discussed.Not discussed.The Use of Generative AI:
While the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) is not prohibited, should counsel or the parties use any GAI resources or material (e.g. ChatGPT), they must disclose and/or certify that any use (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.
This provision is a combination of rules adopted by the Southern District of New York and the Federal District Court of New Jersey. 		https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeColaiacovo2024.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/new-york
47
New YorkUpdated Jan. 22, 2024U.S. State CourtIntegrated Domestic Violence CourtJudge Tandra L. DawsonJudge RulesNo.Required via affirmation at end of document.Affirmation required.Required via affirmation.Not discussed.Not discussed.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. 		https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/new-york
48
New YorkEffective Feb. 1, 2024U.S. State CourtChautauqua County Supreme CourtJudge Grace M. HanlonJudge RulesNo.Required.Attestation required.Required via attestation.Not discussed.Not discussed.DISCLOSING USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
“Artificial intelligence” or “AI” means the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior. “Generative artificial intelligence” or “Generative AI” means artificial intelligence that is capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.
If generative AI is used to compose or draft any paper presented for filing, the filer must disclose its use and attest that citations of authority have been verified by a human being by using print volumes or traditional legal databases and that the language in the paper has been checked for accuracy by the filer.		https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/new-york
49
TexasSigned 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
50
U.S. Administrative Bodies
51
IdahoEffective July 12, 2023Other U.S. CourtOffice of Administrative HearingsChief Administrative Hearing Officer NickelsPolicies ManualPractitioners not prohibited, but Hearing Officers prohibited.May be requested by hearing officer.May be requested by hearing officer via disclosure.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.23-1 Use of AI
Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, are prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and/or chatbots (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer, including, but not limited to, preliminary orders, recommended final orders, and/or proposed final orders. This policy is interim in nature, until such time as the Code of Conduct is updated to address the use of artificial intelligence in such drafting.
23-12 Disclosures of AI
In accord with IRAP 510 regarding prehearing conferences’ objectives to “establish procedure at hearings” and “addressing other matters that may expedite orderly conduct and disposition of the proceeding,” hearing officers are permitted to request disclosure statements from parties (whether represented or self-represented) regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of briefing and other written submissions. The decision whether to request such disclosure statements, and for which submissions, is solely within the discretion of the hearing officer.
The recommended AI disclosure language is as follows:
I certify that no portion of this filing has been drafted by generative artificial intelligence, or otherwise that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence contained herein—including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis— has been checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being before it has been submitted to the Hearing Officer. I understand that by signing this filing, I am responsible for the contents herein, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of this filing.
Alternatively, hearing officers, in their sole discretion, may elect to preemptively include a provision regarding the use of artificial intelligence in any order to the parties, substantially providing the same directive regarding the use of artificial intelligence. The recommended language is as follows:
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence: No portion of any filing in this matter will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence—including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis—unless it has been checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being before it is submitted to the Hearing Officer. Any party who signs any filing in this case will be held responsible for the contents thereof, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. 		https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Policies-Manual-12.31.23.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/idaho
52
IllinoisEffective Aug. 1, 2023 (signed by Chief Administrative Law Judge)Other U.S. CourtIllinois Human Rights Commission Administrative Law SectionAllStanding OrderNot prohibited, but strongly cautioned against.Not discussed.Not discussed.Yes, "singularly responsible" for verifying.Not discussed.Not discussed.17. WARNING AGAINST THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
A party to an ALS case is strongly cautioned against using generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) to compose legal pleadings. In their current state, these platforms do not provide the necessary guarantees of accuracy and reliability that are required for legal writing, and have been shown to return false information when used as a substitute for traditional legal databases curated by human beings.
Parties are advised that they will be held singularly responsible for verifying the content and veracity of any pleading that is submitted to this administrative court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence was used to draft portions of their pleading. Where the contents of a pleading are determined to be false, exaggerated, or otherwise inaccurate as the result of the use of generative artificial intelligence, the assigned administrative law judge may impose an appropriate sanction as if the party itself had provided untruthful information to this administrative court. Stated differently, the use of a generative artificial intelligence program to compose a legal pleading will not serve as a defense to an allegation that the information provided by that program was misleading or untrue.		https://hrc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/hrc/documents/standing-order-for-all-cases-filed-before-the-als.pdfhttps://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/Artificial-Intelligence-Court-Order-Tracker/states/illinois
53
Non-U.S. Courts
54
CanadaDated Dec. 20, 2023 (signed by Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton)Foreign CourtFederal CourtAllNotice to the Parties and the ProfessionPractitioners not prohibited, but "The Court will not use AI, and more specifically automated decision-making tools, in making its judgments and orders, without first engaging in public consultation."Required via Declaration in first paragraph of document.Not discussed.Urged to have "human in the loop."Not discussed.Not discussed.The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings
1. Declaration for AI-Generated Content
This Notice applies to all documents that are (i) submitted to the Court, and (ii) prepared for the purpose of litigation. For greater certainty, this Notice does not apply to Certified Tribunal Records submitted by tribunals or other third party decision-makers.
The Court recognizes that AI may offer substantial benefits in the preparation of documents. However, the Court also has obligations to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, safeguard public confidence in the justice system, and uphold the rule of law.
To ensure that the Court understands how AI has been used, any document prepared for the purpose of litigation, and submitted to the Court by or on behalf of a party or intervener that contains content created or generated by AI, must include the Declaration.
The Declaration shall be made in the first paragraph of the document in question, for instance, the first paragraph of a Memorandum of Fact and Law or Written Representations. An example of the Declaration follows:
Declaration
Artificial intelligence (AI) was used to generate content in this document.		https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligence; https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2023-12-20-notice-use-of-ai-in-court-proceedings.pdfhttps://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ai-canada-federal-court-judges/
55
CanadaDated Oct. 6, 2023Foreign CourtCourt of Appeal of Alberta, court of King's Bench of Alberta, Alberta Court of JusticeAllNotice to the Profession & PublicNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required ("must').Not discussed.Not discussed.In light of the significant concerns surrounding the potential fabrication of legal authorities through large language models (LLMs)1, this Notice addresses the matter of legal references in submissions to the courts. Our joint commitment to reinforcing the integrity and credibility of legal proceedings is critical.
Caution: The Court of Appeal of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Justice urge practitioners and litigants to exercise caution when referencing legal authorities or analysis derived from LLMs in their submissions.
Reliance: For all references to case law, statutes or commentary in representations to the courts, it is essential that parties rely exclusively on authoritative sources such as official court websites, commonly referenced commercial publishers, or well-established public services such as CanLII.
"Human in the loop": In the interest of maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and authenticity, any AI-generated submissions must be verified with meaningful human control. Verification can be achieved through cross-referencing with reliable legal databases, ensuring that the citations and their content hold up to scrutiny. This accords with the longstanding practice of legal professionals.
The Alberta Courts recognize that emerging technologies often bring both opportunities and challenges, and the legal community must adapt accordingly. Therefore, we encourage ongoing discussions and collaborations to navigate these complexities effectively.		https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/npp/tri-court-notice-to-profession-and-public---large-language-models.pdf?sfvrsn=713d5a82_7; https://www.albertacourts.ca/kb/resources/announcements/notice-to-the-profession-public---use-of-ai-in-citations-submissionshttps://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-courts-warn-lawyers-about-ai-use-in-courtroom-1.6994204; https://cassels.com/insights/federal-court-provides-guidance-on-artificial-intelligence-in-court-proceedings/; https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1780574
56
CanadaOrdered 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; https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1780574
57
CanadaDated Oct. 18, 2023Foreign CourtSupreme Court of Nova ScotiaAllNoticeNo but caution urged.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required ("must').Not discussed.Not discussed.Ensuring the Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI")
In light of the significant concerns surrounding the potential fabrication of legal authorities through generative artificial intelligence (AI), this Notice addresses the matter of legal references in submissions to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Our joint commitment to reinforcing the integrity and credibility of legal proceedings is critical.
Caution: The Supreme Court urges practitioners and litigants to exercise caution when referencing legal authorities or analysis derived from generative AI in their submissions.
Reliance: For all references to case law, statutes or commentary in representations to this Court, it is essential that parties rely exclusively on authoritative sources such as
official court websites, commonly referenced commercial publishers or well-established public services such as CanLII.
“Human in the Loop”: In the interest of maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and authenticity, any AI-generated submissions must be verified with meaningful human control. Verification can be achieved through cross-referencing with reliable legal databases and ensuring that the citations and their content hold up to scrutiny. This accords with the longstanding practice of legal professionals.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recognizes that emerging technologies bring both opportunities and challenges, and the legal community must adapt accordingly. Therefore, we encourage ongoing discussions and collaborations to navigate these complexities effectively. 		https://www.courts.ns.ca/sites/default/files/notices/Oct%202023/NSSC_Court_Submissions_AI_Oct_18_2023.pdfhttps://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1780574
58
CanadaDated Oct. 24, 2023Foreign CourtSuperior Court of QuebecAllNotice to Profession and PublicNo but caution urged.Not discussed.Not discussed.Required ("must').Not discussed.Not discussed.Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models
Considering the significant concerns surrounding the potential fabrication of legal authorities through large language models, this Notice addresses the matter of legal
references in submissions to the court. Our joint commitment to reinforcing the integrity and credibility of legal proceedings is critical.
Caution: The Superior Court of Québec urges practitioners and litigants to exercise caution when referencing legal authorities or analysis derived from large language
models.
Reliance: For all references to case law, statutes or commentary in representations to this court, it is essential that parties rely exclusively on authoritative sources such as official court websites, commonly referenced commercial publishers, or wellestablished public services.
"Human in the loop": In the interest of maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and authenticity, any AI-generated submissions must be verified with meaningful
human control. Verification can be achieved through cross-referencing with reliable legal databases, ensuring that the citations and their content hold up to scrutiny. This
accords with the longstanding practice of legal professionals.
The Superior Court of Québec recognizes that emerging technologies often bring both opportunities and challenges, and the legal community must adapt accordingly.
Therefore, we encourage ongoing discussions and collaborations to navigate these complexities effectively.		https://coursuperieureduquebec.ca/fileadmin/cour-superieure/Communiques_and_Directives/Montreal/Avis_a_la_Communite_juridique-Utilisation_intelligence_artificielle_EN.pdfhttps://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1780574
59
CanadaDated 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
60
IndiaDecided 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/
61
United KingdomDated Dec. 12, 2023Foreign CourtCourts and Tribunals JudiciaryAllJudicial GuidanceNo.Not discussed.Not discussed.Not discussed.Discussed under "2) Uphold confidentiality and privacy"Not discussed.2) Uphold confidentiality and privacy
Do not enter any information into a public AI chatbot that is not already in the public domain. Do not enter information which is private or confidential. Any information that you input into a public AI chatbot should be seen as being published to all the world.
The current publicly available AI chatbots remember every question that you ask them, as well as any other information you put into them. That information is then available to be used to respond to queries from other users. As a result, anything you type into it could become publicly known.
You should disable the chat history in AI chatbots if this option is available. This option is currently available in ChatGPT and Google Bard but not yet in Bing Chat.
Be aware that some AI platforms, particularly if used as an App on a smartphone, may request various permissions which give them access to information on your device. In those circumstances you should refuse all such permissions.
In the event of unintentional disclosure of confidential or private information you should contact your leadership judge and the Judicial Office. If the disclosed information includes personal data the disclosure should reported as a data incident. Details of how to report a data incident to Judicial Office can be found at this link: Judicial Intranet | Data breach notification form for the judiciary.
In future AI tools designed for use in the courts and tribunals may become available but, until that happens, you should treat all AI tools as being capable of making public anything entered into them.

Examples: Potential uses and risks of Generative AI in Courts and Tribunals
Potentially useful tasks
• AI tools are capable of summarising large bodies of text. As with any summary, care needs to be taken to ensure the summary is accurate.
• AI tools can be used in writing presentations, e.g. to provide suggestions for topics to cover.
• Administrative tasks like composing emails and memoranda can be performed by AI.
Tasks not recommended
• Legal research: AI tools are a poor way of conducting research to find new information you cannot verify independently. They may be useful as a way to be reminded of material you would recognise as correct.
• Legal analysis: the current public AI chatbots do not produce convincing analysis or reasoning.		https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AI-Judicial-Guidance.pdfhttps://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-disputes/blog/uk-publishes-official-guidance-to-judiciary-on-use-of-ai