{"counts":{"documentTypes":{"court-rule":34,"ethics-opinion":13,"guidance":26,"judgment-guidance":3,"policy":14,"practice-direction":4,"report":7,"standing-order":157,"statute":2},"jurisdictionsNamed":46,"primaryReviewed":6,"publisherReported":222,"records":260,"reviewRequired":32,"statusCounts":{"in-force":245,"proposed":7,"superseded":3,"unknown":2,"withdrawn":3},"verificationLabels":{"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED":6,"PUBLISHER_REPORTED":222,"REVIEW_REQUIRED":32}},"coverageStatement":"259 U.S. records imported from a dated publisher snapshot plus one primary-source addition; this is not a complete inventory of all courts or current case-specific orders.","datasetDate":"2026-11-01","date":"2026-11-01","generatedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","monitorRunId":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","publisherSnapshotDate":"2026-10-07","records":[{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"California Legislature","courtLevel":"legislation","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"statute","effectiveDate":"2027-01-01","id":"us-ca-sb-574-chapter-858-2026","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Bus. & Prof. Code §6068.1(a)(2): an attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.","§6068.1(a)(3)(A): no confidential, personal identifying or other nonpublic information may be entered into a generative AI system unless access is restricted to the attorney and authorised persons bound to protect it.","§6068.1(a)(3)(B): take reasonable steps to verify generative AI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and correct erroneous or hallucinated output.","§6068.1(a)(3)(C): disclose generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted, and consider disclosure for content provided to the public.","Code Civ. Proc. §128.7(b)(2): no paper filed in any court may contain citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified, including citations provided by generative AI.","Code Civ. Proc. §1282.1: an arbitrator shall not delegate any part of their decision-making to generative AI or rely on AI-generated information outside the record without prior disclosure to the parties.","Code Civ. Proc. §180: the Judicial Council must publicly revisit Standard 10.80 of the Standards of Judicial Administration in light of generative AI."],"lastChecked":"2026-10-05","practiceNotes":["Publisher labels this enacted, with a later effective date. Do not treat enactment as present applicability."],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ca-sb-574-chapter-858-2026"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-10-05","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ca-sb-574-chapter-858-2026","publisherRequirements":["prohibition","confidentiality","verification","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"enacted","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"California Legislature","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"California Legislative Information — SB 574 chaptered text (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026)","primary":true,"url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574"},{"label":"California Legislative Information — SB 574 bill history","primary":true,"url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574"},{"label":"California Legislative Information — SB 574 status page","primary":true,"url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574"},{"label":"California Constitution, art. IV, §8(c) (effective date of statutes)","primary":true,"url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%208.&article=IV"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%208.&article=IV"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574":null,"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574":null,"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574":null,"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%208.&article=IV":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","state":"California","status":"unknown","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"California statute approved 30 September 2026 that bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. Attorneys must keep nonpublic information out of unrestricted AI systems, verify outputs including every citation, and disclose AI use to the court. Arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to AI. It takes effect 1 January 2027.","title":"California SB 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026): generative AI duties for attorneys and arbitrators","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20261005155729/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. The official status page gives 21 August 2026 as the last amended date, so the chaptered text carries no change from the version enrolled on 4 September 2026. The act has no urgency clause and states no operative date, so under Cal. Const. art. IV §8(c)(1) it goes into effect on 1 January 2027, the first 1 January after a 90-day period from enactment.","date":"2026-09-30","url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","version":"Chaptered (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026)"},{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20261005155758/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-04","url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574","version":"Enrolled"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["appellate"],"court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","courtLevel":"federal-appellate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ca5-court-2023-proposed-rule-32-3-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Would have required Form 6 certification whether generative AI was used in drafting.","If used, all generated text, citations, and legal analysis had to be human-reviewed.","The Fifth Circuit later decided not to adopt this proposed rule."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":["Related proposal was not adopted; see the primary-source-reviewed non-adoption decision."],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ca5-court-2023-proposed-rule-32-3-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ca5-court-2023-proposed-rule-32-3-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ca5-court-2023-proposed-rule-32-3-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"relatedRecords":["us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification"],"reportedStatus":"withdrawn","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — Notice of Proposed Amendment to Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3 and Form 6 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:27.512689+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf":"197cad6b27b7f57cea3e0cbb35eda95228bdd019ed5fbe6194b7f679afb55f84"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf","state":null,"status":"withdrawn","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Fifth Circuit proposed amending Rule 32.3 and Form 6 to add a generative-AI certification for appellate filings. The proposal would have required counsel and unrepresented filers to certify either no GenAI drafting or human review and approval of all generated text, including citations and legal analysis.","title":"Notice of Proposed Amendment to Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3 and Form 6","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["appellate"],"court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ca5-court-2024-decision-not-to-adopt-ai-rule","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The court declined to adopt a special AI rule for drafting briefs.","Parties and counsel remain responsible for truthfulness and accuracy under existing appellate rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ca5-court-2024-decision-not-to-adopt-ai-rule","recordId":"us-ca5-court-2024-decision-not-to-adopt-ai-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ca5-court-2024-decision-not-to-adopt-ai-rule","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — Court Decision on Proposed Rule Regarding Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:26.423419+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf":"ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"After public comment, the Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt its proposed AI certification rule. The notice leaves no special AI disclosure or certification requirement in effect, but expressly warns parties and counsel that existing appellate duties require careful checking for truthfulness and accuracy.","title":"Court Decision on Proposed Rule Regarding Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacb-court-2026-ai-tools-risks","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The notice warns that AI tools may generate inaccurate, outdated, inapplicable, or fabricated legal content.","It says filers should conduct careful line-by-line review before filing AI-assisted documents.","Filers should confirm every cited case, statute, rule, and quotation exists and is accurately quoted.","Inaccurate citations or unsupported factual assertions may lead to sanctions or denial of relief."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacb-court-2026-ai-tools-risks","recordId":"us-cacb-court-2026-ai-tools-risks"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacb-court-2026-ai-tools-risks","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Risks Associated with the Use of AI Tools to Generate Documents for Filing with the Court (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:26.993972+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf":"bbade1ec6931047ea94708b086ab34691e7b30cc760317d75b2bb38ee6a43f56"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Central District of California Bankruptcy Court’s AI tools notice warns filers that AI-generated court documents may contain fabricated citations, misstatements, or unsupported facts. It advises line-by-line review and verification before filing, and warns that inaccurate or fabricated content may produce sanctions or denial of relief.","title":"Risks Associated with the Use of AI Tools to Generate Documents for Filing with the Court","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-court-2026-ai-use-nonuse-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Michelle Williams Court","keyProvisions":["Every motion, pleading, or other paper must attach a declaration disclosing AI use or non-use.","The filer must certify either no AI drafting or that AI-drafted portions were reviewed and verified.","The declaration must identify which portions of the filing incorporate generative AI outputs.","Inaccurate or undeclared AI outputs may lead to sanctions, including State Bar referral.","Failure to submit the declaration may result in striking the filing."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-court-2026-ai-use-nonuse-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-court-2026-ai-use-nonuse-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-court-2026-ai-use-nonuse-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Michelle Williams Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:50.805829+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c":"1630e10ad389805511233f1e3432107b2eea80e5c51b40a35e43a9607e956c80"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Michelle Williams Court’s Central District of California civil standing order requires every motion, pleading, or paper to include a declaration about AI use or non-use. If AI drafted any portion, the filer must verify the content, identify AI-generated portions, and faces sanctions or striking for noncompliance.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-kato-2026-ai-sanctions","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Kenly Kiya Kato","keyProvisions":["Parties using generative AI for any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or filing must attach a declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify source-material review and accuracy.","The certification must state compliance with Rule 11 obligations.","Non-compliance or nonexistent or inaccurate sources triggers $500 sanctions for the first and each later violation."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-kato-2026-ai-sanctions","recordId":"us-cacd-kato-2026-ai-sanctions"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-kato-2026-ai-sanctions","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Kenly Kiya Kato","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Civil Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:55.479606+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c":"8053c107e5a9b3c52a348ce84309ef1eb280222e3075e4660140e5dfaf8c0a5b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kenly Kiya Kato’s Central District of California civil standing order requires a separate declaration when a party uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing. The declaration must disclose AI use and certify accuracy; noncompliance or inaccurate sources triggers stated monetary sanctions.","title":"Civil Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-oliver-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver","keyProvisions":["Parties using generative AI for any portion of a brief, pleading, or filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use.","The declaration must certify source-material review and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with Rule 11 obligations."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-oliver-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-oliver-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-oliver-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Rozella A. Oliver","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Central District of California procedures page requires a separate declaration when a party uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing. The declaration must disclose AI use and certify review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-park-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park","keyProvisions":["Counsel and parties are reminded of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 obligations.","The reminder concerns representations made by signing a paper filing with the court.","The procedures page does not impose an AI-specific disclosure or certification requirement."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-park-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","recordId":"us-cacd-park-2026-ai-rule11-reminder"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-park-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Anna Y. Park","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park’s Central District of California procedures page includes an Artificial Intelligence paragraph reminding counsel and parties of Rule 11 obligations and the representations made by signing a court filing. The text does not add an AI-specific disclosure, verification, or certification requirement.","title":"Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-roberts-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts","keyProvisions":["Counsel and parties are reminded of Rule 11 obligations.","The notice concerns representations made by signing a paper filed with the court.","No AI-specific disclosure, certification, or verification duty is stated."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-roberts-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","recordId":"us-cacd-roberts-2026-ai-rule11-reminder"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-roberts-2026-ai-rule11-reminder","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Daniel S. Roberts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Important Notice: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts’s Central District of California notice is titled Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings. It reminds counsel and parties of Rule 11 obligations and representations made by signing filings, but it does not state a separate AI-use disclosure or certification requirement.","title":"Important Notice: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-sagar-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI for any portion of a brief, pleading, or filing must attach a declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use.","The declaration must certify source-material review and accuracy.","The certification must state Rule 11 compliance."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-sagar-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-sagar-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-sagar-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Alka Sagar","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar’s official Central District of California notice requires any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration. The declaration discloses AI use and certifies source-material review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-scott-2026-ai-citation-check","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott","keyProvisions":["Counsel are put on notice that AI tools used to draft briefs can hallucinate legal authorities.","Anyone signing an AI-created filing certifies that cited legal authorities were checked and verified.","The provision ties the certification to duties under Rule 11.","The page applies to briefs and other court filings."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-scott-2026-ai-citation-check","recordId":"us-cacd-scott-2026-ai-citation-check"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-scott-2026-ai-citation-check","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Karen E. Scott","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Judge’s Procedures: Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott’s Central District of California procedures warn that AI tools used to draft briefs may hallucinate authorities. Under Rule 11, anyone signing a filing created in whole or part with AI certifies to the court that cited legal authorities were checked and verified.","title":"Judge’s Procedures: Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-spaeth-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI for a brief, pleading, or filing must attach a declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use.","The filer must certify source-material review.","The filer must verify AI-generated content is accurate and Rule 11 compliant."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-spaeth-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-spaeth-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-spaeth-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Autumn D. Spaeth","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth’s Central District of California notice requires a separate declaration when generative AI is used to generate any portion of a filing. The filer must disclose AI use and certify review of source material, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-viramontes-2026-ai-sanctions","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes","keyProvisions":["Parties using generative AI for motions, briefs, pleadings, or other filings must attach a declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify source-material review and accuracy.","Noncompliance or nonexistent or inaccurate sources triggers $500 sanctions for the first and each later violation.","Counsel are reminded of Rule 11 inquiry obligations."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-viramontes-2026-ai-sanctions","recordId":"us-cacd-viramontes-2026-ai-sanctions"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-viramontes-2026-ai-sanctions","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes’s Central District of California notice requires a separate declaration for generative-AI-assisted filings. The declaration must disclose use and certify review and accuracy; noncompliance or nonexistent or inaccurate sources leads to stated monetary sanctions. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.","title":"Important Notice: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-walter-2026-ai-order","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge John F. Walter","keyProvisions":["Attorneys and pro se parties must disclose if generative AI was used preparing court-filed documents.","They must certify personal review and verification of legal citations, quotations, factual statements, and analyses.","Failure to include the certification results in striking the document.","The requirement appears on Judge Walter’s official procedures page."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-walter-2026-ai-order","recordId":"us-cacd-walter-2026-ai-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-walter-2026-ai-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge John F. Walter","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge John F. Walter’s Central District of California procedures page contains an Order Re: Artificial Intelligence. Attorneys and pro se parties who used generative AI preparing filed documents must disclose that use and certify personal verification of citations, quotations, facts, and analysis; missing certification results in striking.","title":"Order Re: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-wright-2026-ai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Otis D. Wright II","keyProvisions":["Specified briefs must include a certificate addressing compliance with the generative AI rule.","Parties using generative AI must disclose use and certify review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","The certificate form covers AI use and non-use.","The certificate requires independent verification of factual and legal accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-wright-2026-ai-certificate","recordId":"us-cacd-wright-2026-ai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-wright-2026-ai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Otis D. Wright II","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Otis D. Wright II’s Central District of California procedures require briefs to include a certificate addressing generative AI. The certificate discloses use or non-use, and when AI was used, states that the filer reviewed, revised, supplemented, and independently verified factual and legal accuracy.","title":"Judge’s Procedures: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-court-2026-prose-ai-tools","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The court tells pro se filers that using AI in arguing a case is permitted.","Users remain responsible for everything filed with the court.","The notice warns that AI tools may generate nonexistent or inaccurate case citations.","The page advises users to review assigned judge standing orders and local rules for disclosure requirements.","The notice cautions users about confidentiality risks when uploading documents into AI tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-court-2026-prose-ai-tools","recordId":"us-cand-court-2026-prose-ai-tools"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-court-2026-prose-ai-tools","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Using AI Tools in Your Case (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:34.317111+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case":"95fbc3340ff4bb3fab78a4bfefda67a33748a9d2ed174089fd5b9f0f4db4b762"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Northern District of California’s pro se notice permits AI tools for case preparation but warns that filers remain responsible under Rule 11 for everything submitted. It advises self-represented litigants to verify citations, check judge-specific disclosure requirements, and avoid exposing confidential information.","title":"Using AI Tools in Your Case","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"practice-direction","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cod-braswell-2025-ai-guidance","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell","keyProvisions":["The guidance focuses on AI hallucinations but says it does not establish new rules or requirements.","The court encourages conferral when an opponent’s filing appears to contain a hallucination.","After conferral, parties may jointly email chambers to identify the issue and resolution.","The court lists factors it may consider when addressing hallucinations.","The guidance flags privacy, bias, deepfakes, misinformation, and human control as broader AI concerns."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cod-braswell-2025-ai-guidance","recordId":"us-cod-braswell-2025-ai-guidance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cod-braswell-2025-ai-guidance","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado — Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Colorado — Guidance on Responsible AI Use in Court Proceedings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:38.920015+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf":"97c7ad8de33c18d667d3a16e8a2f9563b4aede6737c6f3860d77c4ff3aed07a5"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell’s District of Colorado guidance discusses responsible AI use and hallucinations in court submissions. It expressly states that it is not an order and does not create new requirements, but suggests conferral, court notice, and factors for addressing hallucinations.","title":"Guidance on Responsible AI Use in Court Proceedings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"clientConsentInIllustrativeForm":true,"generationEligible":true,"humanEditingDoesNotRemoveTrigger":true,"noUseCertificate":true,"signatories":"All drafting contributors","trigger":"Every filing","verifyAllAIPortions":true,"verifyCitations":true},"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court, District of Colorado","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Date shown in reviewed primary source","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-12-01","id":"us-cod-wang-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Nina Y. Wang","keyProvisions":["Every filing before Judge Nina Y. Wang must contain an AI-use or non-use certification signed by all drafting contributors. AI-drafted language, even if later edited, requires personal human accuracy review and certification that authorities are genuine.","All drafting contributors must sign.","The illustrative AI-use example includes client advice/consent and manual citation review; do not universalize that example to other courts.","Non-use and use are separate branches."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["All drafting contributors must sign.","The illustrative AI-use example includes client advice/consent and manual citation review; do not universalize that example to other courts.","Non-use and use are separate branches."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Page 2, A.1–2","sha256":"7522daa85c0fd87cd5b4dc44e29f36965ef79a7838ef60ecd430b244b44a1efb","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cod-wang-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cod-wang-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cod-wang-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Filings before Judge Nina Y. Wang, District of Colorado; not a district-wide statement.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:34.750049+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf":"7923731fa1ee93a6208e698123fb2d600a7b9913226cfa78361643456f660a69"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"Every filing before Judge Nina Y. Wang must contain an AI-use or non-use certification signed by all drafting contributors. AI-drafted language, even if later edited, requires personal human accuracy review and certification that authorities are genuine.","title":"Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-hid-kobayashi-undated-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI in preparation of documents filed with the court must disclose AI use in the document.","The disclosure must identify the specific AI tool used.","The filer must certify in the document that AI-drafted portions were checked for accuracy.","The accuracy certification expressly includes citations and legal authority.","The filer remains responsible under Rule 11 and applicable professional rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"hid-kobayashi-undated-generative-ai","recordId":"us-hid-kobayashi-undated-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-hid-kobayashi-undated-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii — Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Hawaii — Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:45.051841+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf":"889064af7e1c0565abc673f9e7703242a2742993d03279a239e7c4f099b2cba9"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf","state":"Hawaii","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi’s District of Hawaii generative AI standing order requires parties using generative AI to prepare documents filed with the court to disclose that use and the specific tool in the document. The filer must certify accuracy review, including citations and legal authority, and remains responsible under Rule 11.","title":"Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-iasd-court-2026-ai-litigation-faq","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The page strongly encourages caution when using AI in litigation because of risks of fabricated cases, holdings, or representations.","Litigants are personally responsible for verifying AI-generated material before submitting it to the court.","The verification responsibility expressly includes quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis.","The court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings, but may require disclosure by order in a specific case.","Failure to review and verify accuracy may result in Rule 11 sanctions, monetary penalties, or dismissal."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"iasd-court-2026-ai-litigation-faq","recordId":"us-iasd-court-2026-ai-litigation-faq"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-iasd-court-2026-ai-litigation-faq","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Iowa — Artificial Intelligence (AI) (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:45.917175+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai":"b223b57c582601d7f916c9520ed738c69b7b9c391e01dbeb62d30722ce935106"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai","state":"Iowa","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Southern District of Iowa AI notice permits litigants to use AI to assist legal proceedings but strongly encourages caution. It states that litigants are personally responsible for verifying AI-generated quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis before submission, and says the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings.","title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-il-cook-cleary-2024-ai-verification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Gerald Cleary","keyProvisions":["A party submitting a document, motion, brief, or memorandum must disclose in writing on the submission that AI was used.","The disclosure must also state that the party verified the existence and accuracy of any authority cited.","Failure to provide the disclosure and verification may result in sanctions.","The AI provision appears at the start of the jury trial standing order."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-cleary-2024-ai-verification","recordId":"us-il-cook-cleary-2024-ai-verification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-cleary-2024-ai-verification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section — Judge Gerald Cleary","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section — Standing Order – Jury Trials (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"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"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:01.544100+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["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"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"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":"020e4c9d945d0b81e2034d579821daf09c95998420791fb836c94aaf304435bc"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"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","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Cleary’s Cook County Law Division jury trial standing order requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used. The party must also state that the existence and accuracy of any authority cited has been verified.","title":"Standing Order – Jury Trials","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"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","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-il-cook-golden-2024-courtroom-2309-ai-verification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Jean M. Golden","keyProvisions":["A party submitting a document, motion, brief, or memorandum must disclose in writing on the submission that AI was used.","The same written disclosure must state that the party verified the existence and accuracy of cited authority.","The order authorizes the court to strike noncompliant documents.","The court may modify the standing order at any time."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-golden-2024-courtroom-2309-ai-verification","recordId":"us-il-cook-golden-2024-courtroom-2309-ai-verification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-golden-2024-courtroom-2309-ai-verification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section — Judge Jean M. Golden","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section — Standing Order for Courtroom 2309 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:02.443529+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr":"40cb3d93dbf833837767f07ac74e7e6856695bcd09434d64b0a2aac9952865ed"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Golden’s Cook County Law Division standing order for Courtroom 2309 requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submission that AI was used. The party must also state that cited authority has been verified for existence and accuracy.","title":"Standing Order for Courtroom 2309","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-04-05","id":"us-il-cook-horan-2024-llm-caption-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Cecilia A. Horan","keyProvisions":["The order applies to use of large language model artificial intelligence, naming ChatGPT as an example.","Use of large language model AI in preparing briefs or other court submissions must be disclosed.","The disclosure must be indicated in the caption on the motion, brief, or other filing.","Failure to include the disclosure may result in sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-horan-2024-llm-caption-disclosure","recordId":"us-il-cook-horan-2024-llm-caption-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-horan-2024-llm-caption-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division — Judge Cecilia A. Horan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division — Standing Order, General Chancery Calendar 9 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.567780+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7":"14e42efe13a58ebcd7fe6988b34a47eb780ade20d8e3ba250a420b425804fce0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Horan’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 9 standing order, effective April 5, 2024, requires disclosure in the caption when large language model artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is used to prepare briefs or other submissions. The order states that failure to disclose may result in sanctions.","title":"Standing Order, General Chancery Calendar 9","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-02-19","id":"us-il-cook-seaton-2025-calendar-60-ai-policy","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Debra A. Seaton","keyProvisions":["The order authorizes AI use before the court and says that use need not be disclosed in filings.","AI use is permitted only if it complies with all applicable legal and ethical standards.","The court will not tolerate unsubstantiated or deliberately misleading AI-generated content.","Attorneys and litigants may be sanctioned for legally or factually unfounded documents."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-seaton-2025-calendar-60-ai-policy","recordId":"us-il-cook-seaton-2025-calendar-60-ai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-seaton-2025-calendar-60-ai-policy","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Judge Debra A. Seaton","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:07.994455+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g":"e3993a452f2910f89f10770c5eac8ea2528de7d538653acf0303f8558d116de3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Seaton’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 60 standing order, effective February 19, 2025, authorizes AI use before the court without requiring disclosure in filings. Attorneys, self-represented litigants, and parties must keep any AI use within legal and ethical standards and remain subject to sanctions for unfounded submissions.","title":"Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-09-03","id":"us-il-cook-sullivan-2024-calendar-60-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"William B. Sullivan","keyProvisions":["The order encourages and applauds the use of emerging technologies such as AI in law practice.","Any filed document created in any part with AI assistance must contain a statement that AI was used.","The disclosure covers AI use in research, writing, editing, or analysis of an opposition document.","The order applies to motions, briefs, affidavits, and other documents filed before the court."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-sullivan-2024-calendar-60-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-il-cook-sullivan-2024-calendar-60-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-sullivan-2024-calendar-60-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"superseded","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Judge William B. Sullivan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.248981+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG":"f6c41b4a9cdcece5e2de57f5ca1c138363f4d111cdd78542b5984d3bfab8457a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG","state":"Illinois","status":"superseded","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Sullivan’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 60 standing order, effective September 3, 2024, requires a statement in any filed document created in any part with AI assistance. The disclosure requirement covers research, writing, editing, and analysis of an opposition document in civil matters before that calendar.","title":"Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-05-31","id":"us-il-cook-wright-2024-calendar-64-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"James A. Wright","keyProvisions":["The order recognizes increasing AI use in law practice and cites accuracy, limitations, and bias concerns.","Any filed document created in any part with AI assistance must include a statement that AI was used.","The disclosure covers research, writing, editing, and analysis of an opposition document.","The statement must be contained within the filed document itself."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-wright-2024-calendar-64-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-il-cook-wright-2024-calendar-64-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-wright-2024-calendar-64-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Judge James A. Wright","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section — Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 64 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:04.204135+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v":"dc28918223e170efdaf530a62838419599c72a3cad78ca4383744b6f7634cc25"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Wright’s Cook County Chancery Calendar 64 standing order, effective May 31, 2024, requires an in-document statement when a filed document is created in any part with AI assistance. The requirement covers AI use for research, writing, editing, and analysis of an opposition document.","title":"Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 64","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ilnd-coleman-2026-ai-research-warning","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Sharon Johnson Coleman","keyProvisions":["Counsel and unrepresented parties using AI with pleadings, motions, or memoranda must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g).","The page prohibits AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions.","The page also prohibits AI-generated legal research citing non-existent cases.","The AI warning appears in the judge-specific requirements page."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ilnd-coleman-2026-ai-research-warning","recordId":"us-ilnd-coleman-2026-ai-research-warning"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ilnd-coleman-2026-ai-research-warning","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Illinois — Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman Requirements (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:46.315675+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman":"2b49afbe01eec14cb7fd12e6dad7d59c8533354513a450a394c2a2fbf3584dda"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Coleman’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page addresses counsel and unrepresented parties using AI in connection with pleadings, motions, or memoranda. It requires compliance with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) and prohibits AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions or non-existent cases.","title":"Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman Requirements","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ilnd-johnston-2023-ai-rule-11-reminder","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Iain D. Johnston","keyProvisions":["The judge-specific page describes the AI provision as a standing order.","Counsel and unrepresented parties using AI with filings or discovery must comply with Rule 11(b), Rule 26(g), and other relevant rules.","The provision covers pleadings, motions, papers, and discovery requests, responses, or objections.","The page cites commentary questioning whether separate disclosure and certification requirements are necessary."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ilnd-johnston-2023-ai-rule-11-reminder","recordId":"us-ilnd-johnston-2023-ai-rule-11-reminder"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ilnd-johnston-2023-ai-rule-11-reminder","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Judge Iain D. Johnston","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Illinois — Artificial Intelligence (AI) (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.343045+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston":"c7734cb459a6ee0a514added6c29becf0a2c3d7dbc2784767120a763b90673e4"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Johnston’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page states a standing order on AI for counsel and unrepresented parties. It reminds filers using AI in pleadings, motions, papers, or discovery materials that they must comply with Rule 11(b), Rule 26(g), and any other relevant rule.","title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ilnd-valdez-2026-ai-sanctions-warning","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Maria Valdez","keyProvisions":["All pleadings and other papers filed with the court must conform with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 11, and/or 26(g).","The judge-specific page identifies misuse of artificial intelligence as an example of a violation.","Violations of those rules, including AI misuse, may result in sanctions.","The warning is displayed on the official magistrate judge page."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ilnd-valdez-2026-ai-sanctions-warning","recordId":"us-ilnd-valdez-2026-ai-sanctions-warning"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ilnd-valdez-2026-ai-sanctions-warning","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Judge Maria Valdez","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Illinois — Judge Maria Valdez Requirements (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:47.243741+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez":"57ffaacf2ef9b99e17399d54e323975dda00022a11f219c88f695e3f11ccd944"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Valdez’s Northern District of Illinois judge-requirements page warns all filers that pleadings and other papers must conform with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 11, and/or 26(g). It identifies misuse of artificial intelligence as a violation that may result in sanctions.","title":"Judge Maria Valdez Requirements","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-moed-court-ai-notice-responsibility","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Court website notice states filers acknowledge responsibility for all filed content.","The responsibility includes any portion generated with artificial intelligence.","The notice cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"moed-court-ai-notice-responsibility","recordId":"us-moed-court-ai-notice-responsibility"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-moed-court-ai-notice-responsibility","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Missouri — Artificial Intelligence Notice to Attorneys and Self-Represented Parties (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:50.406952+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence":"9dbc5eddebdd468e7dceace9deef9354099674804a7ca4dbdbfd763c3057ae61"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence","state":"Missouri","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eastern District of Missouri’s Artificial Intelligence attorney page is a concise notice. It does not require disclosure or certification, but it states that attorneys and self-represented parties presenting any pleading, written motion, or paper remain responsible for its contents, including AI-generated portions, under Rule 11(b).","title":"Artificial Intelligence Notice to Attorneys and Self-Represented Parties","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the District of Nebraska","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2024-12-01","id":"us-ned-court-2024-civil-genai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["All parties are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of legal briefing regardless of whether generative AI drafted any portion.","Parties using generative AI are expected to verify the contents of their filings.","A brief must include a certificate executed by the author affirming compliance with the subsection.","The certificate must state either no generative AI was used or a human signatory verified all generated text.","Human verification must include all citations and legal authority; material certificate misrepresentation may lead to striking and sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ned-court-2024-civil-genai-certificate","recordId":"us-ned-court-2024-civil-genai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ned-court-2024-civil-genai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the District of Nebraska","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Nebraska — Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d) Generative Artificial Intelligence and Certificate of Compliance (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:54.898308+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf":"d81539ab7748b292d1426ca8c47cbac1731ea6dba2c5ba8217e8d47cb80dcb1d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf","state":"Nebraska","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d), effective December 1, 2024, requires civil briefs to include a certificate stating either that no generative AI program was used in drafting or that a human signatory verified the accuracy of all generated text, including all citations and legal authority.","title":"Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d) Generative Artificial Intelligence and Certificate of Compliance","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"discloseUse":true,"generationEligible":true,"identifyTool":true,"noUseCertificate":false,"trigger":"Generative AI used in preparation of a document for filing","verifyAllAIPortions":true,"verifyLawAndRecordCitations":true},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nmd-strickland-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Margaret I. Strickland","keyProvisions":["In Judge Margaret I. Strickland's cases, a party using generative AI to prepare a document for filing must identify the use and specific tool in the document, and certify that a person checked AI-drafted portions, including all citations and legal authority.","The source PDF does not display an issue or effective date; neither is inferred."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["The source PDF does not display an issue or effective date; neither is inferred."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Paragraphs 1–3","sha256":"07a7ee0c5b08bfdb8332671aa7b528ab8089aa9b6cb1b425a0da6b0c5600f9cd","sourceUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nmd-strickland-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-nmd-strickland-generative-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nmd-strickland-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"scope":"All cases assigned to District Judge Margaret I. Strickland; documents prepared with generative AI for filing.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:54.096459+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf":"bed772eeac8da58a8793c16aa39d381dfe8c82794162e6b145dd353bdba1a744"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","state":"New Mexico","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"In Judge Margaret I. Strickland's cases, a party using generative AI to prepare a document for filing must identify the use and specific tool in the document, and certify that a person checked AI-drafted portions, including all citations and legal authority.","title":"Standing Order Establishing Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["family"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Matrimonial Division","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-07-01","id":"us-ny-supreme-castorina-2026-genai-motion-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Ronald Castorina Jr.","keyProvisions":["Applies to Part 44 matrimonial motion submissions.","The rule is adopted pursuant to Part 161 and requires a certification in every motion submission.","If GenAI was used, generated text and legal content must be reviewed for accuracy and approved.","The certification must identify the program, documents, and parts drafted by GenAI."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-castorina-2026-genai-motion-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-castorina-2026-genai-motion-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-castorina-2026-genai-motion-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Matrimonial Division — Judge Ronald Castorina Jr.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Matrimonial Division — Part 44 Matrimonial Division Rules: Artificial Intelligence Programs (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-44-rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-44-rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-44-rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-44-rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Ronald Castorina Jr.’s Part 44 rules, effective July 1, 2026, adopt a discretionary Part 161 motion-submission certification. Every motion submission must state whether generative AI drafted listed documents; if so, all generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved, with program and portions identified.","title":"Part 44 Matrimonial Division Rules: Artificial Intelligence Programs","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-44-rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-04-08","id":"us-ny-supreme-crawford-2026-ai-recording-ethics","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Ashlee Crawford","keyProvisions":["Recording or photographing any court proceeding is strictly prohibited.","The recording prohibition expressly includes AI assistants, bots, and smart glasses.","Court users are reminded of ethical duties requiring accuracy and authenticity in submissions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-crawford-2026-ai-recording-ethics","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-crawford-2026-ai-recording-ethics"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-crawford-2026-ai-recording-ethics","publisherRequirements":["prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["prohibition"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Judge Ashlee Crawford","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Individual Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part38rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part38rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part38rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part38rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Ashlee Crawford’s individual part rules, effective April 8, 2026, prohibit recording or photographing court proceedings, including through artificial intelligence assistants, bots, or smart glasses. The rules also acknowledge AI use in litigation and remind court users of ethical duties requiring accuracy and authenticity in submissions.","title":"Individual Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part38rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-frank-2026-genai-motion-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Lyle E. Frank","keyProvisions":["Applies to all submissions with respect to a motion.","The certification must say whether GenAI drafted covered affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda.","If GenAI was used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved.","The program, documents, and parts drafted by the program must be identified."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-frank-2026-genai-motion-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-frank-2026-genai-motion-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-frank-2026-genai-motion-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Judge Lyle E. Frank","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Part 11 Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence Programs (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part11-rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part11-rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part11-rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part11-rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Lyle E. Frank’s Part 11 civil rules require every motion submission to include a certification stating whether generative AI drafted any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law. If used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved, and the program, affected documents, and drafted parts must be identified.","title":"Part 11 Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence Programs","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part11-rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-king-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Kathy J. King","keyProvisions":["Applies to any party using a generative AI tool to prepare filed documents.","The party must disclose AI use and the specific AI tool used.","The party must identify the portion of the filing drafted by AI.","The filing must include a certification of diligent human review for accuracy and applicability."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-king-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-king-2026-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-king-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Judge Kathy J. King","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Part 6 Rules: The Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part6-rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part6-rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part6-rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part6-rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Kathy J. King’s Part 6 civil term rules require any party using a generative AI tool in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose AI use, disclose the specific tool, identify the portion drafted by AI, and include a certification that the AI work product was diligently reviewed by a human for accuracy and applicability.","title":"Part 6 Rules: The Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part6-rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, Queens County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-lancman-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Mojgan C. Lancman","keyProvisions":["Applies to parties appearing pro se or through counsel before Justice Lancman.","Use of GenAI in preparation of filed documents must be disclosed in the document.","The specific AI tool must be identified.","The filer must certify checking AI-drafted content for citations, legal authority, and facts."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-lancman-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-lancman-2026-genai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-lancman-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, Queens County, Civil Term — Judge Mojgan C. Lancman","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, Queens County, Civil Term — Part 20 Rules: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-01/part20.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-01/part20.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-01/part20.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-01/part20.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Mojgan C. Lancman’s Part 20 rules require any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool. The filer must certify checking AI-drafted content for accuracy, legal authority, citations, and facts.","title":"Part 20 Rules: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-01/part20.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","family"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-waterman-marshall-2026-genai-motion-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Kathleen Waterman-Marshall","keyProvisions":["Applies to all submissions with respect to a motion.","The certification must state whether GenAI was used in drafting covered motion documents.","If GenAI was used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed and approved.","The program, documents, and parts drafted by GenAI must be specified."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-waterman-marshall-2026-genai-motion-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-waterman-marshall-2026-genai-motion-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-waterman-marshall-2026-genai-motion-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County — Judge Kathleen Waterman-Marshall","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County — IAS Part 31 Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Filings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part31rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part31rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part31rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part31rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Kathleen Waterman-Marshall’s IAS Part 31 rules require all motion submissions to include a certification stating whether generative AI was used to draft affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda. If used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed and approved, and the program, documents, and drafted parts identified.","title":"IAS Part 31 Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part31rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court / County Court","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-01-01","id":"us-ny-surrogates-schopf-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Jonathan G. Schopf","keyProvisions":["The rule governs AI use in preparation and submission of materials to the court.","AI-assisted technology used in evidence creation or editing must be disclosed at submission.","The written certification must identify the type of AI, software or program, role, and final review and approval.","A party may request a Frye hearing for AI-assisted or generated evidence."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-surrogates-schopf-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","recordId":"us-ny-surrogates-schopf-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-surrogates-schopf-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court / County Court — Judge Jonathan G. Schopf","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court / County Court — Local Court Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Jonathan G. Schopf’s Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court and County Court local rules, effective January 1, 2025, require attorneys, witnesses, or parties to disclose AI-assisted technology used in creating or editing evidence. The written certification must identify the AI type, software or program, role, and final review and approval.","title":"Local Court Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["family"],"court":"Williams County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2023-12-01","id":"us-oh-williams-juvenile-2023-ai-notice-rule","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The rule defines artificial intelligence as allowing machines to learn from experience, adjust to inputs, and perform human-like tasks.","The rule states that AI accuracy is difficult to determine because AI programs cannot determine whether analyzed data is accurate.","The court acknowledges that attorneys and parties may use AI in presenting information, exhibits, and pleadings.","AI use in exchanged or presented information, exhibits, pleadings, or information provided to parties must include a NOTICE disclosure.","The NOTICE must state how AI was used and the process used to check the accuracy of the information provided."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"oh-williams-juvenile-2023-ai-notice-rule","recordId":"us-oh-williams-juvenile-2023-ai-notice-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-williams-juvenile-2023-ai-notice-rule","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Williams County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Williams County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division — Juvenile Local Rule 1.4, Use of Technology (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256":"cd62d4a1925c2834a43cae9c096f25337634d617b6cf2f4b1e7b054d6880d9f0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Williams County Juvenile Local Rule 1.4, effective December 1, 2023, acknowledges that attorneys and parties may use AI in presenting information, exhibits, and pleadings to the juvenile court. It requires a NOTICE disclosure stating how AI was used and the process used to check the accuracy of the provided information.","title":"Juvenile Local Rule 1.4, Use of Technology","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Courts of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams Counties","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2023-12-01","id":"us-oh-williams-probate-2023-ai-notice-rule","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The rule states that AI may be used by attorneys and parties in presenting information, exhibits, and pleadings to the court.","The rule says AI accuracy is difficult to determine because AI programs cannot determine whether analyzed data is accurate.","The court finds safeguards necessary due to accuracy concerns in information presented through AI.","AI use in exchanged or presented information, exhibits, pleadings, or information to parties must include a NOTICE disclosure.","The NOTICE must state how AI was used and the process used to check the accuracy of the information provided."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"oh-williams-probate-2023-ai-notice-rule","recordId":"us-oh-williams-probate-2023-ai-notice-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-williams-probate-2023-ai-notice-rule","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Courts of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams Counties","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Courts of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams Counties — Probate Local Rule 80, Use of Technology (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://iteam.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2745/Probate-Local-Rule-80-Use-of-Technology-effective-1212023"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://iteam.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2745/Probate-Local-Rule-80-Use-of-Technology-effective-1212023"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://iteam.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2745/Probate-Local-Rule-80-Use-of-Technology-effective-1212023":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://iteam.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2745/Probate-Local-Rule-80-Use-of-Technology-effective-1212023","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Probate Local Rule 80, effective December 1, 2023, applies in the Defiance, Fulton, Henry, and Williams County Probate Divisions. It allows attorneys and parties to use AI for information, exhibits, pleadings, and case information, but requires a NOTICE disclosure explaining how AI was used and how accuracy was checked.","title":"Probate Local Rule 80, Use of Technology","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://iteam.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2745/Probate-Local-Rule-80-Use-of-Technology-effective-1212023","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ohnd-boyko-2023-generative-ai-ban","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Christopher A. Boyko","keyProvisions":["No attorney for a party or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court.","Violating the AI ban may lead to striking, economic sanctions, contempt, or dismissal.","The order excludes information gathered from Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google, or Bing.","All parties and counsel must immediately inform the court if they discover AI use in a filed document."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ohnd-boyko-2023-generative-ai-ban","recordId":"us-ohnd-boyko-2023-generative-ai-ban"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ohnd-boyko-2023-generative-ai-ban","publisherRequirements":["prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["prohibition"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio — Judge Christopher A. Boyko","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Ohio — Court’s Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:59.713384+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf":"20399c50c58be794904760729406925f8127f2fbd8070d621d4e214006825528"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Boyko’s Northern District of Ohio standing order on generative AI prohibits attorneys and pro se parties from using AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court. It excludes legal and internet search engines, requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered, and warns of sanctions including striking, economic sanctions, contempt, and dismissal.","title":"Court’s Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["appellate"],"court":"Oregon Court of Appeals","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-or-appellate-2026-ai-fabricated-authority","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The notice defines fabricated authority to include fake legal or factual content created by generative AI.","Filing fabricated authorities is grounds for striking, monetary sanctions, attorney fees, or dismissal of the appeal.","Anyone using generative AI to prepare court-filing content must verify that cited cases exist.","Users must verify quotations are in the cited cases.","Users must verify paraphrased propositions are objectively reasonable in light of the cited case."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"or-appellate-2026-ai-fabricated-authority","recordId":"us-or-appellate-2026-ai-fabricated-authority"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-or-appellate-2026-ai-fabricated-authority","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Oregon Court of Appeals","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Oregon Court of Appeals — Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:40.148494+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf":"5072358e382548b0c6e3c2fda77a36602ffd0e55a9d58e29a557ee8b93a99b96"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf","state":"Oregon","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Oregon Court of Appeals notice warns that fabricated authority produced by generative AI can result in striking, monetary sanctions, attorney fees, or dismissal. Anyone using generative AI to prepare filing content must verify cases, quotations, and paraphrased propositions before filing.","title":"Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-paed-cinquanto-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Caroline Goldner Cinquanto","keyProvisions":["Applies to attorneys and pro se parties using GenAI to prepare filed papers.","The filer must disclose that GenAI was used to prepare the filing.","The filer must identify the generated portions and the specific tool used and how it was used.","The filer must certify every citation to law or the record was verified under Rule 11 obligations."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"paed-cinquanto-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-paed-cinquanto-2026-genai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-paed-cinquanto-2026-genai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Caroline Goldner Cinquanto","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Goldner Cinquanto’s Policies and Procedures: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:06.768822+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf":"945868734e4e82e427dd18b5dddedf377dfca37e4216f30c6be6fae1d322f61a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Caroline Goldner Cinquanto’s policies and procedures require any attorney or pro se party using generative AI to prepare a complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other filed paper to disclose AI use, identify generated portions, identify the specific tool and how it was used, and certify citations to law or record.","title":"Judge Goldner Cinquanto’s Policies and Procedures: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-pamd-camoni-2026-genai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Sean A. Camoni","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to prepare a filed document before Judge Camoni must include a certificate.","The certificate must disclose the specific AI tool used.","The certificate must identify portions prepared by the AI program.","The certificate must state that a person checked accuracy, citations, and legal authority."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"pamd-camoni-2026-genai-certificate","recordId":"us-pamd-camoni-2026-genai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-pamd-camoni-2026-genai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — Judge Sean A. Camoni","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Middle District of Pennsylvania — Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni Page: Use of Generative AI (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:08.320700+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni":"e2840b3d4d76a5b67204dc683325c6d46f61f7d98bbd551164ea4058291b432e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing a document filed before him to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and human checking of accuracy, citations, and legal authority.","title":"Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni Page: Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-pamd-caraballo-2025-genai-caution","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Phillip Caraballo","keyProvisions":["The page cautions about inaccurate facts, inaccurate law, nonexistent citations, and confidential-information disclosure.","Parties and counsel are cautioned to verify facts or legal citations prepared through generative AI.","Parties and counsel are cautioned to safeguard against disclosure of confidential information.","Failure to comply with those practices may result in sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"pamd-caraballo-2025-genai-caution","recordId":"us-pamd-caraballo-2025-genai-caution"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-pamd-caraballo-2025-genai-caution","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — Judge Phillip Caraballo","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Middle District of Pennsylvania — Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo Page: Use of Generative AI (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:07.314730+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo":"275e97c033832f165ffc2e32e0ea200e0803b0b438fc47b4ec48cb9d5693eec3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page cautions all parties and counsel using generative AI about factual and legal errors, nonexistent citations, and confidential-information disclosure. It directs them to verify facts and legal citations prepared through generative AI and safeguard confidential information, with sanctions possible for noncompliance.","title":"Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo Page: Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-pamd-latella-2025-genai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Leo A. Latella","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to prepare a filed document before Judge Latella must include a certificate.","The certificate must disclose the specific AI tool.","The certificate must identify portions prepared by the AI program.","The certificate must state that a person checked accuracy, including citations and legal authority."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"pamd-latella-2025-genai-certificate","recordId":"us-pamd-latella-2025-genai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-pamd-latella-2025-genai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — Judge Leo A. Latella","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Middle District of Pennsylvania — Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella Page: Use of Generative AI (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:09.290171+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella":"9f313b9b1b633693585f9f623fdbfe598a689235bc441a87a8cbc17f0b7208cf"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing a document filed before him to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and human checking of accuracy, citations, and legal authority.","title":"Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella Page: Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-pamd-mehalchick-2024-genai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Karoline Mehalchick","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to prepare a filed document before Judge Mehalchick must include a certificate.","The certificate must disclose the specific AI tool used.","The certificate must identify portions of the filing prepared by the AI program.","The certificate must state that a person checked accuracy, citations, and legal authority."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"pamd-mehalchick-2024-genai-certificate","recordId":"us-pamd-mehalchick-2024-genai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-pamd-mehalchick-2024-genai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — Judge Karoline Mehalchick","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Middle District of Pennsylvania — Judge Karoline Mehalchick Page: Use of Generative AI (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:06.313256+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick":"f56aed20b01eb9f78f0b70269eec7a8101569dc7271344f90067a91bbaede386"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Middle District of Pennsylvania judge page requires any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing any document to be filed before her to include a Certificate of Use of Generative AI disclosing the tool, portions prepared by AI, and that a person checked accuracy, citations, and legal authority.","title":"Judge Karoline Mehalchick Page: Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["all","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-wied-court-2026-pro-se-ai-warning","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The representing-yourself page advises filers that AI-assisted documents may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications.","Filers are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their filings.","Filings containing factual errors, misrepresentations of law, nonexistent cases, or other misrepresentations may result in Rule 11 sanctions.","The warning appears on the pro se information page."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"wied-court-2026-pro-se-ai-warning","recordId":"us-wied-court-2026-pro-se-ai-warning"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-wied-court-2026-pro-se-ai-warning","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Wisconsin — Representing Yourself (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.089693+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself":"8a1c228e17fa6f6ceba9bde72429b7c0b4644f1554c9c5e48b7c17f4b0a6fcee"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","state":"Wisconsin","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eastern District of Wisconsin representing-yourself notice warns pro se and other filers that documents created with AI assistance may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications. It states that filers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of filings and that erroneous or misleading filings may result in Rule 11 sanctions.","title":"Representing Yourself","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-06","url":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-lin-2026-generative-ai-tools","issuedDate":"2026-09-04","judge":"Judge Rita F. Lin","keyProvisions":["Use of generative artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited.","Counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of research conducted with generative AI tools.","Counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for statements made in filings.","Self-represented litigants are subject to the same AI-related responsibilities.","Class settlement motions must address whether AI will administer settlement and identify safeguards."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-lin-2026-generative-ai-tools","recordId":"us-cand-lin-2026-generative-ai-tools"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-lin-2026-generative-ai-tools","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Rita F. Lin","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Rita F. Lin (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:09.943623+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf":"5fab2a3d20edd03dbd463f920066f6c87aa5175ab2122d2397996dfa1f0f5ce6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Rita F. Lin’s civil standing order for the Northern District of California permits generative AI use but requires counsel and self-represented litigants to personally confirm research accuracy and remain responsible for filings. The order also asks class settlement papers to address AI use in administration and safeguards.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Rita F. Lin","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-04","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-gand-johnson-2026-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Tiffany R. Johnson","keyProvisions":["Counsel and pro se parties must disclose AI use to prepare documents filed or submitted to the court.","If AI was used, the filer must sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence.","The required statement identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","The court does not generally accept mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints as good-faith excuses."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"gand-johnson-2026-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-gand-johnson-2026-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-gand-johnson-2026-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia — Judge Tiffany R. Johnson","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Georgia — Guidelines to Parties and Counsel in Civil Cases: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:46.254942+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf":"a16b44cdc759bae252882100f0250a4fd02398f8407cedb6d8cd0c6d6b62be9e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia requires counsel and pro se parties in civil cases to disclose AI use in preparing filings or submissions. The guidelines modified September 1, 2026 require a tool-identifying disclosure and a penalty-of-perjury independent-review certification.","title":"Guidelines to Parties and Counsel in Civil Cases: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-01","url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-09-01","id":"us-vaed-lauck-2026-genai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-09-01","judge":"Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck","keyProvisions":["The standing order applies to all civil cases assigned to Chief United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.","Local Civil Rule 7(E) does not apply to actions covered by the standing order.","Any party using generative AI for preparation of a filing must identify that use in the filing.","The party must provide a certification that all citations were reviewed for accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"vaed-lauck-2026-genai-certification","recordId":"us-vaed-lauck-2026-genai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-vaed-lauck-2026-genai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia — Judge M. Hannah Lauck","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Virginia — In re Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.493471+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf":"f995bb54396a3a6fb218216d8a26e9653ad68e1f79889de0b433b908e6d8b58b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf","state":"Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Chief Judge Lauck of the Eastern District of Virginia requires disclosure and citation review certification in all civil cases assigned to her. The September 1, 2026 standing order says any party using generative AI to prepare a filing must identify that use and certify citation accuracy.","title":"In re Local Civil Rule 7(E) and Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-09-01","url":"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":true,"noUseCertificate":false,"retainPrompts":true,"signatories":"Lead trial counsel","trigger":"Submission containing AI-generated content","verifyAllAIPortions":true},"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court, Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Date shown in reviewed primary source"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-lee-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-08-31","judge":"Eumi K. Lee","keyProvisions":["In civil cases before Judge Eumi K. Lee, submissions containing AI-generated content require certification that lead trial counsel personally verified accuracy. Counsel must retain records of generative-AI prompts or inquiries in case they become relevant.","Do not infer a requirement for all Northern District of California judges."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["Do not infer a requirement for all Northern District of California judges."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Section VIII.H, printed page 10","sha256":"c458c4777f1fe136c381434b126940f14789f1578518d246c6a22d7702106f8c","sourceUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-lee-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cand-lee-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-lee-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification","record-keeping"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification","record-keeping"],"scope":"Civil cases before Judge Eumi K. Lee; submissions containing AI-generated content.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf"},{"label":"Northern District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Eumi K. Lee (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:55.691574+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf":"913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd","https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf":"913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"In civil cases before Judge Eumi K. Lee, submissions containing AI-generated content require certification that lead trial counsel personally verified accuracy. Counsel must retain records of generative-AI prompts or inquiries in case they become relevant.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Eumi K. Lee","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-31","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"Tarrant County Criminal Courts","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-08-27","id":"us-tx-tarrant-criminal-courts-2026-local-rule-5-33-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2026-08-27","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["All motions and briefs must certify whether they were created using AI.","If AI was used, the certification must say all drafted language, citations, arguments, and analyses were verified by a human.","On request, the filer must disclose specific AI-created parts and the AI name."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-tarrant-criminal-courts-2026-local-rule-5-33-ai-filings","recordId":"us-tx-tarrant-criminal-courts-2026-local-rule-5-33-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-tarrant-criminal-courts-2026-local-rule-5-33-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Tarrant County Criminal Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Tarrant County Criminal Courts — Tarrant County Criminal Local Rule 5.33: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:21.730423+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103":"3303c534260076dc15c8bb25c2ea356c3a5fcb74682d97247ea1c42a8d38bd59"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Tarrant County Criminal Local Rule 5.33 defines AI broadly and requires every motion and brief to include a certification saying whether AI was used. If AI was used, the filer must certify human verification of AI-created content, and the court may request the specific AI-created parts and AI name.","title":"Tarrant County Criminal Local Rule 5.33: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-27","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-martinezolguin-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-08-26","judge":"Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín","keyProvisions":["ChatGPT and similar tools are not prohibited.","Counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of AI-generated content.","Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a lead-trial-counsel accuracy certification.","Failure to include the certification or comply with verification requirements is sanctionable.","Counsel must maintain prompt and inquiry records if they become relevant."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-martinezolguin-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cand-martinezolguin-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-martinezolguin-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification","record-keeping"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","record-keeping","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:45.735779+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf":"ed85a1d082cefad383c56c5195a6b09f7e3d34c03f0c9db9bf554d340fe96a57"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s revised Northern District of California civil standing order allows ChatGPT and similar tools while requiring lead trial counsel to certify accuracy for submissions containing AI-generated content. Counsel must verify content and maintain prompt or inquiry records if they become relevant.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-26","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Panola County Court at Law and County Court","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-08-21","id":"us-tx-panola-county-courts-2026-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-08-21","judge":"Judge Rick McPherson; Judge Rodger G. McLane","keyProvisions":["Attorneys and self-represented litigants may not rely on unreviewed AI legal research.","The order prohibits entering sensitive or confidential case information into AI programs.","It prohibits AI-created or AI-altered evidence and AI-reliant expert methodology in contested hearings or trials."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-panola-county-courts-2026-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-panola-county-courts-2026-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-panola-county-courts-2026-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Panola County Court at Law and County Court — Judge Rick McPherson; Judge Rodger G. McLane","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Panola County Court at Law and County Court — Panola County Court at Law and County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:20.360271+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097":"74bafe747bcb727bc4d530784c77b4224626899ea0240bd07b0bd548cdb978b9"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Panola County courts’ standing order broadly regulates AI use in every case. It forbids reliance on unreviewed AI legal research, prohibits sensitive or confidential information from being entered into AI tools, prohibits AI-created or altered evidence, and requires each attorney or self-represented litigant to file a verification acknowledging the order.","title":"Panola County Court at Law and County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-21","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-08-17","id":"us-nvd-couvillier-2026-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-08-17","judge":"Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III","keyProvisions":["Counsel and parties may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 and ethical duties.","Filings with AI-generated content must include a certification above the signature line.","The certification states source material was reviewed and AI-generated content is accurate and Rule 11 compliant.","Failure to double-check AI-created citations or facts is grounds for potential sanctions.","Sealed documents and filings with personal-data identifiers may not be uploaded to open AI systems.","Parties are encouraged to address AI protocols in protective orders."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nvd-couvillier-2026-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-nvd-couvillier-2026-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nvd-couvillier-2026-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada — Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Nevada — Second Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:53.756528+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf":"9f138b3723c30e58cb6afbfcb87a164a0639bd93af887153a0cc918f83d32208"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf","state":"Nevada","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III’s second amended District of Nevada standing order permits AI use with conditions. Filings with AI-generated content require a certification, users must verify citations and facts, sealed or personal-identifier documents may not be uploaded to open AI systems, and violations may be sanctioned.","title":"Second Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-17","url":"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Superior Court of California, County of Orange","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ca-orange-knill-2026-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-08-10","judge":"Judge Kimberly A. Knill","keyProvisions":["Generative AI use is not prohibited.","Counsel and self-represented parties must personally confirm the accuracy of AI-assisted research.","A signature or listing on a filing containing AI-generated content constitutes certification that the signer verified accuracy.","Errors by AI tools are imputed to the signer and listed attorneys or self-represented parties.","Users must comply with protective orders and legal or ethical obligations when interacting with AI tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ca-orange-knill-2026-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-ca-orange-knill-2026-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ca-orange-knill-2026-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of California, County of Orange — Judge Kimberly A. Knill","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of California, County of Orange — Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:59.284097+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf":"6fdc8eaa27eb8e194013d70cc0d9ea86a2d20259029f75185630fff0d055c22c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kimberly A. Knill’s Orange County Superior Court Department C31 procedures include a standing order on generative AI. AI use is not prohibited, but signers of filings containing AI-generated content certify personal verification, must protect confidentiality, and may face sanctions or discipline for failure to verify.","title":"Department C31 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-10","url":"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff","lawyers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The committee concluded no further court rule or evidence code recommendations were needed after adoption of Practice Book section 4-9, amendments to section 4-2 and corresponding appellate rules amendments","Guiding principles for Branch AI use: judicial independence, fairness and impartiality, transparency, accountability, protection of confidential information, cybersecurity, human oversight of AI-generated work product, responsible innovation","The Judicial Branch established an Internal Artificial Intelligence Committee and a standing AI Review Subcommittee to review proposed AI software and hardware before implementation","The Connecticut Code of Evidence Oversight Committee, chaired by Judge Hope C. Seeley, is reviewing whether the evidence rules need amendment for generative AI","AI should augment, not replace, human judgment, and AI-derived information should be verified by traditional methods"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-report","publisherRequirements":["verification","confidentiality","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Final Report (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf"},{"label":"Committee page","primary":true,"url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/default.htm"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf","https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/default.htm"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf":null,"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/default.htm":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf","state":"Connecticut","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The committee established by the Connecticut Judicial Branch to examine AI in the legal system closed with a final report on 10 August 2026. It records that Practice Book section 4-9 and related amendments discharged the rules charge, sets eight guiding principles for judicial AI use, and describes the Branch's permanent AI governance structure.","title":"Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System: Final Report","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Final report of the committee","date":"2026-08-10","url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf","version":"Final Report"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the District of Maryland","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-08-05","id":"us-mdd-court-2026-genai-filings","issuedDate":"2026-08-05","judge":"Chief Judge George L. Russell III","keyProvisions":["The standing order cites Rule 11 certifications for pleadings, written motions, and other papers.","It cautions that lawyers and unrepresented litigants relying on generative AI have filed nonexistent citations and fake quotations.","Attorneys and unrepresented parties must verify the accuracy of all filings before submission, especially when relying on AI.","The presiding judge may impose Rule 11 sanctions and refer attorneys to the Disciplinary and Admissions Committee."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"mdd-court-2026-genai-filings","recordId":"us-mdd-court-2026-genai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-mdd-court-2026-genai-filings","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the District of Maryland — Judge George L. Russell III","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Maryland — Standing Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.962924+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf":"e4fe1077f27b6f7139d24ae394dad30267945f7397dcf1c9d64c6703408862a1"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf","state":"Maryland","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2026-03 on August 5, 2026 for generative AI in court filings. The order cautions attorneys and unrepresented parties to verify all filings before submission and warns that hallucinated citations, quotations, or representations may lead to Rule 11 sanctions.","title":"Standing Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-05","url":"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Official source URL repaired; verify current document and case-specific applicability"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"PDF body dated September 25, 2026, page 15; official document list matches."},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-09-25","judge":"Judge Anne Hwang","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The order applies in criminal cases and includes pro se defendants in the definition of counsel."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Anne Hwang","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Current official source document; version review required","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/24dcfadd-c113-44e7-98d8-08df1b5f5540"},{"label":"Previous reported source URL (retained for monitoring history)","primary":false,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:46.718221+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688":"ff58ab5b3ee8c12f465ddfc8faf4103fa4038dc94b42c6cd0b1d84b607751316"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceRepairHistory":[{"newSourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/24dcfadd-c113-44e7-98d8-08df1b5f5540","observedAt":"2026-11-01T17:28:24.615021+00:00","previousRecord":{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-08-03","judge":"Judge Anne Hwang","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The order applies in criminal cases and includes pro se defendants in the definition of counsel."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-hwang-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Anne Hwang","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.450134+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-03","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688","version":"Amended"}]},"reason":"PDF body dated September 25, 2026, page 15; official document list matches. Section A.5, page 4: separate declaration, disclosure, reviewed-source/accuracy certification and Rule 11 obligations remain. Later revision: not a same-version relocation. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary."}],"sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/24dcfadd-c113-44e7-98d8-08df1b5f5540","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Official source retrieved on 2026-11-01; document revision or relocation recorded. Current applicability requires review.","summary":"Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-03","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688","version":"Amended"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Direct official-source retrieval; applicability review required","changes":"PDF body dated September 25, 2026, page 15; official document list matches. Section A.5, page 4: separate declaration, disclosure, reviewed-source/accuracy certification and Rule 11 obligations remain. Later revision: not a same-version relocation. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary.","date":"2026-09-25","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/24dcfadd-c113-44e7-98d8-08df1b5f5540","version":"Source repair 2026-11-01"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-gand-jones-2026-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Steve C. Jones","keyProvisions":["Counsel and pro se parties must disclose use of AI in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court.","If AI was used, the filer must sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence.","The disclosure identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law under Rule 11.","Counsel and pro se parties may not input information subject to a protective order into an AI program, tool, or application."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"gand-jones-2026-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-gand-jones-2026-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-gand-jones-2026-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia — Judge Steve C. Jones","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Georgia — Instructions for Cases Assigned to the Honorable Steve C. Jones: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:47.109384+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf":"9d0c3c114cf338c068c34ddaf22933026f92dbf4cb40e431f04b5766110fec71"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia requires counsel and pro se parties to disclose any AI use in preparing civil submissions. The instructions revised August 2026 require a tool-identifying certification and prohibit exposing protective-order information to an AI program, tool, or application.","title":"Instructions for Cases Assigned to the Honorable Steve C. Jones: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-01","url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-marmolejo-2026-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo","keyProvisions":["Criminal procedures require review of AI-assisted filings before submission.","The procedures say the court may sanction abusive reliance on inaccurate AI-generated content.","The section incorporates SDTX General Order 2025-04."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-marmolejo-2026-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","recordId":"us-txsd-marmolejo-2026-criminal-generative-ai-procedures"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-marmolejo-2026-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo Criminal Court Procedures Section 7 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:11.002036+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf":"3a5553cec0c9f7e2ed75ff5f4dc7c496db6621db96aa05837fb7b26aba437e66"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Marmolejo’s criminal procedures contain a generative-AI section for criminal filings. It requires factual and legal review of AI-assisted filings, holds signers accountable for all content submitted under their names, and warns that reliance on inaccurate or frivolous AI content may trigger sanctions.","title":"Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo Criminal Court Procedures Section 7","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-08-01","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Official source URL repaired; verify current document and case-specific applicability"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"PDF body dated October 21, 2026, page 18; official document list matches."},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-10-21","judge":"Judge Anne Hwang","keyProvisions":["A party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must review the source material.","The filer must verify that AI-generated content is accurate and complies with Rule 11 obligations.","Section E.5 does not impose a separate AI-use disclosure declaration.","The standing order applies to civil cases assigned to Judge Anne Hwang and includes self-represented litigants."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["The October 21, 2026 civil order replaces the earlier declaration/disclosure description. Section E.5 requires source and accuracy verification; this is not a district-wide or case-specific exemption."],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Anne Hwang","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Current official source document; version review required","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/b2228e14-89de-44ed-487c-08df2f987860"},{"label":"Previous reported source URL (retained for monitoring history)","primary":false,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:48.862484+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688":"899c0fa951d15e9a164828002885ca40cb670ab660f33937996a343eda6cd245"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceRepairHistory":[{"newSourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/b2228e14-89de-44ed-487c-08df2f987860","observedAt":"2026-11-01T17:28:24.615021+00:00","previousRecord":{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-07-31","judge":"Judge Anne Hwang","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The order applies in civil cases and expressly includes pro se litigants in the definition of counsel."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-hwang-2026-civil-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Anne Hwang","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.450134+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-31","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688","version":"Amended"}]},"reason":"PDF body dated October 21, 2026, page 18; official document list matches. Section E.5, page 7: verification of source material, generated-content accuracy and Rule 11 compliance; no separate declaration or AI-use disclosure requirement in this clause. Existing summary explicitly requires declaration/disclosure, so substantive contradiction requires re-review. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary."}],"sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/b2228e14-89de-44ed-487c-08df2f987860","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Official source retrieved on 2026-11-01; document revision or relocation recorded. Current applicability requires review.","summary":"Section E.5 of Judge Anne Hwang’s civil standing order dated October 21, 2026 requires a party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing to review the source material and verify that the generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations. This clause does not require a separate AI-use declaration.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-31","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688","version":"Amended"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Direct official-source retrieval; applicability review required","changes":"PDF body dated October 21, 2026, page 18; official document list matches. Section E.5, page 7: verification of source material, generated-content accuracy and Rule 11 compliance; no separate declaration or AI-use disclosure requirement in this clause. Existing summary explicitly requires declaration/disclosure, so substantive contradiction requires re-review. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary.","date":"2026-10-21","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/b2228e14-89de-44ed-487c-08df2f987860","version":"Source repair 2026-11-01"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-07-29","id":"us-ga-fulton-emadi-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-07-29","judge":"Judge Emadi","keyProvisions":["The order governs AI tools in briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions in criminal and civil dockets.","AI use to prepare, draft, or review a filing must be disclosed in the document.","The certification identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","Every citation to law, case, statute, or the record must be verified as accurate and existing for the proposition cited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-emadi-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-emadi-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-emadi-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Emadi","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Emadi’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:42.053029+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf":"2d0797a5522b86b5d479f7f6f81a4613536c8659f4f731679782808bd760a83d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Emadi of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 29, 2026 standing order requires a tool-identifying certification under penalty of perjury and verification of every legal, statutory, and record citation.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Emadi’s Division","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-29","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-07-29","id":"us-ncwd-court-2026-ai-use-order","issuedDate":"2026-07-29","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Attorneys and pro se parties may employ AI or other technological assistance for legal research or drafting pleadings and briefs.","Any filing is deemed to certify factual support, warranted legal contentions, existing and accurately cited authorities, and accurate quotations.","The order requires human verification by the signatory or an attorney of record under the signatory’s supervision.","AI use with transcripts, summaries, analyses, expert reports, exhibits, photographs, audio, or video requires validation of accuracy and authenticity.","The order supersedes the June 18, 2024 standing order and no longer requires a separate AI certificate."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ncwd-court-2026-ai-use-order","recordId":"us-ncwd-court-2026-ai-use-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ncwd-court-2026-ai-use-order","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Western District of North Carolina — In re Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:51.919699+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf":"3425822492c907cd362a55c023a381e1225ac14e55b811cc92abb49f0861cb27"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf","state":"North Carolina","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Western District of North Carolina superseded its 2024 AI order on July 29, 2026. Attorneys and pro se parties may use AI, but every filing is deemed to certify factual support, legal validity, existing and accurate authorities, accurate quotations, and required human verification.","title":"In re Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-29","url":"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-hsu-2026-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-07-23","judge":"Judge Wesley L. Hsu","keyProvisions":["AI-prepared filings should indicate AI use in the caption title.","AI users must file a declaration disclosing use, verifying all content and each citation, and specifying AI-prepared portions.","Counsel must maintain prompt and portion records.","AI-generated evidentiary material must be disclosed and produced during discovery with notice.","Parties shall refrain from uploading opponent discovery to public generative AI systems.","Arbitrators may not delegate work to AI or rely on AI-generated information outside the record."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-hsu-2026-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-cacd-hsu-2026-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-hsu-2026-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality","record-keeping"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","record-keeping","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Wesley L. Hsu","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:47.498796+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a":"64f13c905b22edd230621af6a2fc15149028da4a1dc519c9481b38d45c775585"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Wesley L. Hsu’s amended civil standing order contains extensive AI provisions for filings, discovery, confidentiality, and arbitration. It requires declarations identifying AI-prepared portions, verification of each citation, prompt records, discovery disclosure for AI-generated evidence, and bars uploads of discovery to public AI systems.","title":"Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-23","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-07-22","id":"us-ga-fulton-ellerbe-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-07-22","judge":"Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe","keyProvisions":["The order governs AI tools in motions, briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions in criminal and civil dockets.","Attorneys and pro se parties who use AI to prepare, draft, or review a filing or submission must disclose it.","The certification identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","Every citation to law, case, statute, or the record must be verified as accurate and existing for the proposition cited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-ellerbe-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-ellerbe-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-ellerbe-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:43.002555+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf":"9882158a28495673a023d978498d51c54b4f831f0905e69ef9a505afaf242c66"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Ellerbe of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se parties to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings and submissions. The filed July 22, 2026 order requires a tool-identifying disclosure and certification that the filer independently reviewed accuracy and verified every citation.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe’s Division","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-22","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"394th Judicial District Court of Texas","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-07-22","id":"us-tx-394th-district-2026-updated-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-07-22","judge":"Judge Monty Kimball","keyProvisions":["Applies to cases in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties.","AI users must sign and submit a certification before using AI-generated information.","The current updated order supersedes earlier 394th District AI standing-order leads."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-394th-district-2026-updated-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-394th-district-2026-updated-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-394th-district-2026-updated-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"394th Judicial District Court of Texas — Judge Monty Kimball","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"394th Judicial District Court of Texas — 394th Judicial District Court Updated Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:06.448916+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057":"e9ad0a28f5148dd92d1753fc5ab97b1cae7c613007e1369889a0322c4a0738bd"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The updated 394th Judicial District standing order applies to cases in Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. AI users must submit a certification before using AI-generated information in court, attesting that AI-created legal content was verified through traditional sources by a human or Texas attorney.","title":"394th Judicial District Court Updated Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-22","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Judicial Branch","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2027-01-01","id":"us-ia-supreme-court-2026-ai-tools-rules","issuedDate":"2026-07-21","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The chapter governs use of AI tools by judicial officers and adjudicative assistants in adjudicative duties.","A judicial officer must maintain independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate or defer to AI work product.","Judicial officers and adjudicative assistants must independently verify the accuracy of all factual or legal sources in AI-prepared work product.","An adjudicative assistant must obtain judicial-officer approval before using an AI tool for adjudicative duties.","AI tools may not be used with judicial case information for adjudicative duties unless approved by the AI innovation and governance committee."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ia-supreme-court-2026-ai-tools-rules","recordId":"us-ia-supreme-court-2026-ai-tools-rules"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ia-supreme-court-2026-ai-tools-rules","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Judicial Branch","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Judicial Branch — Chapter 27, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:47.805865+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/":"5f3f5642d1635c96275831d082e4cbb24a31b1a0c7142d14622aff76aa317a09"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/","state":"Iowa","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Iowa Supreme Court order filed July 21, 2026, adopts Chapter 27 governing judicial use of AI tools effective January 1, 2027. It covers judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, requires independent decision-making and verification of factual or legal sources, requires assistant disclosure to the judicial officer, and restricts case-information use to approved tools.","title":"Chapter 27, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-21","url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-slaughter-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-07-10","judge":"Judge Fred W. Slaughter","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The order applies to motions, briefs, pleadings, and other filings in civil cases."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-slaughter-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-slaughter-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-slaughter-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Fred W. Slaughter","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Civil Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:48.460121+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af":"4fb79eaac8a0b57ad42dcbe0e6f32e041c32fe7766743337bbd8df7a220f2179"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Civil Standing Order requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Civil Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-10","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Official source URL repaired; verify current document and case-specific applicability"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Official list and filename say Civil Case Standing Order October 2026.pdf. Body Dated field is blank; exact issue day not established."},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Mark C. Scarsi","keyProvisions":["A party using a generative AI platform in connection with a filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify independent legal judgment, review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","The declaration must identify which portion of the filing incorporates generative AI outputs.","Inaccurate or undeclared generative AI outputs may result in sanctions without further warning."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Mark C. Scarsi","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Current official source document; version review required","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/45c481b5-8c26-4eba-2fc4-08df3514c597"},{"label":"Previous reported source URL (retained for monitoring history)","primary":false,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:47.872919+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9":"ee43a99e99749527373719553dd189a76f8b7074a1807bf977ceb858dff3ad32"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceRepairHistory":[{"newSourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/45c481b5-8c26-4eba-2fc4-08df3514c597","observedAt":"2026-11-01T17:28:24.615021+00:00","previousRecord":{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Mark C. Scarsi","keyProvisions":["A party using a generative AI platform in connection with a filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify independent legal judgment, review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","The declaration must identify which portion of the filing incorporates generative AI outputs.","Inaccurate or undeclared generative AI outputs may result in sanctions without further warning."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-scarsi-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Mark C. Scarsi","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.450134+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Mark C. Scarsi’s Central District of California civil standing order requires parties using a generative AI platform in connection with a filing to attach a declaration. The declaration discloses AI use, identifies AI-output portions, and certifies independent review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-01","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9","version":"Original"}]},"reason":"Official list and filename say Civil Case Standing Order October 2026.pdf. Body Dated field is blank; exact issue day not established. Section 15, page 17: separate declaration disclosing use, independent-review/accuracy/Rule 11 certification, identification of portions incorporating AI outputs, warning of sanctions remain. Later listed revision; full equivalence to old document cannot be established. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary."}],"sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/45c481b5-8c26-4eba-2fc4-08df3514c597","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Official source retrieved on 2026-11-01; document revision or relocation recorded. Current applicability requires review.","summary":"Judge Mark C. Scarsi’s Central District of California civil standing order requires parties using a generative AI platform in connection with a filing to attach a declaration. The declaration discloses AI use, identifies AI-output portions, and certifies independent review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-01","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9","version":"Original"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Direct official-source retrieval; applicability review required","changes":"Official list and filename say Civil Case Standing Order October 2026.pdf. Body Dated field is blank; exact issue day not established. Section 15, page 17: separate declaration disclosing use, independent-review/accuracy/Rule 11 certification, identification of portions incorporating AI outputs, warning of sanctions remain. Later listed revision; full equivalence to old document cannot be established. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary.","date":null,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/45c481b5-8c26-4eba-2fc4-08df3514c597","version":"Source repair 2026-11-01"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Bexar County Civil District Courts","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-07-01","id":"us-tx-bexar-civil-district-courts-2026-local-rule-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-07-01","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["All pleadings must include an AI certificate on the court-approved form.","The certificate attests that generative-AI-produced legal content will be verified before submission.","Verification must be by Texas-licensed or admitted counsel or by a self-represented litigant through traditional non-AI sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-bexar-civil-district-courts-2026-local-rule-ai-certification","recordId":"us-tx-bexar-civil-district-courts-2026-local-rule-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-bexar-civil-district-courts-2026-local-rule-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Bexar County Civil District Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Bexar County Civil District Courts — Bexar County Civil District Courts Local Rules A.I. Certification (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:20.148254+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022":"8b235a2f57e9149845554769875c1bdb6b9e74da369d4ea4c553c520fad0479f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Bexar County Civil District Courts’ local rules require all pleadings to include an approved AI certification. The certificate attests that drafted language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analyses produced by generative AI will be verified before submission through traditional legal sources.","title":"Bexar County Civil District Courts Local Rules A.I. Certification","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Texas Business Court","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-07-01","id":"us-tx-business-court-2026-local-rule-10-c-ai","issuedDate":"2026-07-01","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The local rule states AI use is not prohibited.","The filing attorney or party is independently responsible for accuracy of all filings.","Filers must comply with legal and ethical duties, including Texas Rule 13 and Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 9-10."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-business-court-2026-local-rule-10-c-ai","recordId":"us-tx-business-court-2026-local-rule-10-c-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-business-court-2026-local-rule-10-c-ai","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Texas Business Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Texas Business Court — Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c): Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:17.492482+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023":"d34fa0fcfcd0b6afc1a2b5d8ada85dcc9973885a02ce08e862923d96723ca0d7"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c), as posted through TOPICs, expressly says use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited. It imposes no separate disclosure or certificate, but it states that the filing attorney or party remains independently responsible for accuracy and existing legal and ethical duties.","title":"Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c): Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-07-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-ramseur-2026-genai-motion-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Dakota D. Ramseur","keyProvisions":["Applies to all motion submissions in Part 34.","The certification must state whether GenAI was used to draft affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda.","If GenAI was used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved.","The program, documents, and drafted parts must be specified."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-ramseur-2026-genai-motion-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-ramseur-2026-genai-motion-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-ramseur-2026-genai-motion-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Judge Dakota D. Ramseur","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Part 34 Practices and Procedures: Artificial Intelligence Programs (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-34-rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-34-rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-34-rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-34-rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Dakota D. Ramseur’s Part 34 practices and procedures, revised June 30, 2026, require all motion submissions to include a certification stating whether generative AI was used in drafting affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda of law and, if used, identifying the program, documents, and parts drafted after attorney or self-represented-party review.","title":"Part 34 Practices and Procedures: Artificial Intelligence Programs","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-30","url":"https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-08/sfc-part-34-rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-chhabria-2026-class-settlement-ai","issuedDate":"2026-06-26","judge":"Judge Vince Chhabria","keyProvisions":["Preliminary approval materials for class settlements must address settlement administration issues.","The order requires disclosure whether AI will be used to administer the settlement.","If AI will be used, the parties must explain safeguards for accuracy and lack of bias."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-chhabria-2026-class-settlement-ai","recordId":"us-cand-chhabria-2026-class-settlement-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-chhabria-2026-class-settlement-ai","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Vince Chhabria","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Judge Chhabria Civil Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:12.084079+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf":"e3874a3b5f27c7e3f6e3dcbe56835430bba2477abb3d6e5ab0022c6ba562e11a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Vince Chhabria’s Northern District of California civil standing order addresses artificial intelligence in class settlement administration. Parties seeking preliminary settlement approval must state whether AI will be used by the administrator, subcontractors, or vendors and, if so, identify safeguards for accuracy and bias.","title":"Judge Chhabria Civil Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-26","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txwd-gonzalez-2026-ai-filings-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-06-25","judge":"Judge Ernest Gonzalez","keyProvisions":["Extends the criminal-case AI certificate requirement to all cases before Judge Gonzalez.","Requires disclosure of generative-AI use with the pleading.","Requires independent verification and certification that confidential information was not disclosed."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txwd-gonzalez-2026-ai-filings-standing-order","recordId":"us-txwd-gonzalez-2026-ai-filings-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txwd-gonzalez-2026-ai-filings-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas — Judge Ernest Gonzalez","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Western District of Texas — Standing Order Concerning the Use of Artificial Intelligence Before Judge Ernest Gonzalez (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:14.442780+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf":"ed6d39a5c5586abf3f720d89930d7b9c3ee597520174321d24124f851ed401bb"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Gonzalez’s standing order applies to represented and pro se parties in civil and criminal cases. It extends his criminal standing-order AI certificate to all cases, requiring a Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage with any AI-assisted pleading and certification of independent verification and confidentiality protection.","title":"Standing Order Concerning the Use of Artificial Intelligence Before Judge Ernest Gonzalez","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-25","url":"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Connecticut Superior Court","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-06-23","id":"us-ct-superior-court-2026-generative-ai-compliance","issuedDate":"2026-06-23","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Section 4-9 defines generative AI and covers court-filed documents.","A person using generative AI to create or edit a filing must independently verify AI-produced citations, legal authorities, or evidence.","By filing, a person represents good-faith diligent efforts to comply with the rule.","The Section 4-2 signature certification incorporates Section 4-9 compliance."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ct-superior-court-2026-generative-ai-compliance","recordId":"us-ct-superior-court-2026-generative-ai-compliance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ct-superior-court-2026-generative-ai-compliance","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Connecticut Superior Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Connecticut Superior Court — Practice Book Amendments: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf","state":"Connecticut","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Connecticut Superior Court’s June 23, 2026 Practice Book amendments add Section 4-9 on generative AI compliance and revise Section 4-2. Anyone using generative AI to create or edit a court-filed document must independently verify all AI-produced citations, legal authorities, or evidence, and filing represents diligent compliance.","title":"Practice Book Amendments: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-23","url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","court-staff","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Rule 1.1 Comment [6] now requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with existing and developing technology","Lawyers must review all GAI output for accuracy, verify citations and facts, and correct false or misleading arguments before filing","A lawyer may charge only for actual time spent; everyday GAI tool costs are non-billable overhead, and GAI training costs generally may not be billed","A lawyer must disclose GAI use when the client asks, or when entering client information into a GAI system","Judicial officers may consult but should never rely on GAI-produced content when drafting orders and decisions, and GAI must never influence or appear to influence a conclusion","Rule 2.9(C) risk: GAI output may import outside information amounting to prohibited independent factual investigation","Even a single incorrect citation may trigger a Rule 8.3 reporting obligation, including as to opposing counsel's output"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","supervision","consent"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court order and both sets of interim guidelines (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf"},{"label":"Interim Guidelines … by Rhode Island Lawyers (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:39.978559+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf","https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf":"cbe7f14902f53718b601d2407de965d74a39e8ac8a831d555530f349cffe9a76","https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf":"d7827b92e555c8ad0f9366d262dcb104e3efcd09427f2b0b9e50981816538c53"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf","state":"Rhode Island","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"By order of 17 June 2026 the Rhode Island Supreme Court amended Article V, Rule 1.1 Comment [6] so that competence expressly includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of developing technology, and adopted advisory interim generative-AI guidelines for Rhode Island lawyers and for judicial officers. The guidelines do not carry the force of law.","title":"In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Amends Rule 1.1 Comment [6] and adopts interim generative AI guidelines for lawyers and for judicial officers","date":"2026-06-17","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-06-16","id":"us-wvnd-court-2026-ai-criminal-discovery","issuedDate":"2026-06-16","judge":"Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh","keyProvisions":["All criminal actions in the district are subject to restrictions on AI tools and sensitive discovery materials.","The legal defense team may not expose sensitive materials to any AI tool without prior written consent from the government.","Defense counsel must identify and describe the AI tool in a written authorization request.","Defense counsel must certify that the tool does not retain or use sensitive materials for model training or expose them to unauthorized third parties.","Defense counsel must certify confidentiality measures and deletion of sensitive materials from the tool at the end of the case."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"wvnd-court-2026-ai-criminal-discovery","recordId":"us-wvnd-court-2026-ai-criminal-discovery"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-wvnd-court-2026-ai-criminal-discovery","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia — Judge Thomas S. Kleeh","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of West Virginia — Standing Order in re Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Review Criminal Discovery (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.535050+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf":"e0200805c14d7091d7242490099fb2d9e879f436dbc8aaabe7efeeac3924faa0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf","state":"West Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Northern District of West Virginia issued a June 16, 2026 standing order for AI tools used to review criminal discovery. Defense counsel must obtain government consent before exposing sensitive materials to AI tools, identify and describe the tool, and certify confidentiality, non-retention, and deletion protections.","title":"Standing Order in re Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Review Criminal Discovery","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-16","url":"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-06-15","id":"us-alnd-manasco-2026-ai-warning","issuedDate":"2026-06-15","judge":"Judge Anna M. Manasco","keyProvisions":["The order warns that filings containing false statements of fact or law generated by AI may trigger show-cause proceedings.","Counsel whose names appear in the signature block may face sanctions under Rule 11 and other authorities.","Show-cause proceedings will include an in-person hearing and sworn affidavits describing AI use and related events.","The warning cites prior sanctions orders issued by the court in Johnson v. Dunn and Rivera v. Triad Properties."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"alnd-manasco-2026-ai-warning","recordId":"us-alnd-manasco-2026-ai-warning"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-alnd-manasco-2026-ai-warning","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama — Judge Anna M. Manasco","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Alabama — Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings: Warning Regarding Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:27.240918+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf":"0b67461061a71f3abdb3ee2d5e72877d4c288045ebeacb3e60caab4553b88f48"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf","state":"Alabama","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Manasco of the Northern District of Alabama warns parties and counsel about false statements generated by artificial intelligence. The June 15, 2026 initial order does not impose a disclosure certification, but it describes show-cause procedures and possible sanctions if AI-generated false law or facts appear in filings.","title":"Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings: Warning Regarding Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-15","url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-norris-2026-part161-ai-review-recording","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Michael J. Norris","keyProvisions":["Attorneys and parties using AI to prepare papers must understand tool capabilities and limitations.","They must carefully review papers and independently ensure no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.","By signing, the attorney or party certifies that review and absence of fictitious content.","Recording or transcribing phone or Teams proceedings by AI software or tools is not permitted."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-norris-2026-part161-ai-review-recording","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-norris-2026-part161-ai-review-recording"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-norris-2026-part161-ai-review-recording","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County — Judge Michael J. Norris","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County — Part 3 Rules: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeNorris2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeNorris2025.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeNorris2025.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeNorris2025.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Michael J. Norris’s Part 3 rules, as of June 5, 2026, use the Part 161 model-rule language requiring attorney or party users of AI tools in court papers to carefully review and independently ensure no fabricated or fictitious content. The rules also bar recording or transcribing phone or Teams proceedings using AI software or tools.","title":"Part 3 Rules: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-05","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeNorris2025.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties","lawyers","judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-fre-707-machine-generated-evidence","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Would apply Rule 702 reliability requirements to evidence produced by a machine or process without a testifying expert.","Public comment period ran to 16 February 2026.","Standing Committee did not recommend action on 3 to 4 June 2026; rule revised and returned for study with deepfake issues.","Reported in the September 2026 reports to the Judicial Conference."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-03","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-fre-707-machine-generated-evidence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-fre-707-machine-generated-evidence","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"US Courts — Reports to the Judicial Conference, September 2026","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026"},{"label":"US Courts — Standing Committee agenda book, June 2026 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:13.913569+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026","https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026":"76be05c216f95d2b860b2463820d1af63d28c79f14abfe8de5df3a1d4fc58865","https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026","state":null,"status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"A proposed United States federal evidence rule that would subject machine-generated evidence, including AI output offered without an expert, to the reliability standards of Rule 702. Public comment closed 16 February 2026. In June 2026 the Standing Committee declined to recommend adoption and returned the rule for further study alongside deepfakes; the earliest effective date is after 1 December 2027.","title":"Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707: Machine-Generated Evidence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-04","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf","version":"Returned for further study (Standing Committee, June 2026)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"District Courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-06-04","id":"us-tx-calhoun-dewitt-goliad-jackson-refugio-victoria-2026-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-06-04","judge":"Judge Stephen Williams; Judge Lisa Harvey Moore; Judge Eli Garza","keyProvisions":["AI users must sign and submit the attached certification form before using AI-generated information.","The order covers legal research, drafting, or analysis for submissions and proceedings.","The certification requires human verification through traditional non-AI legal sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-calhoun-dewitt-goliad-jackson-refugio-victoria-2026-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-calhoun-dewitt-goliad-jackson-refugio-victoria-2026-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-calhoun-dewitt-goliad-jackson-refugio-victoria-2026-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"District Courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties — Judge Stephen Williams; Judge Lisa Harvey Moore; Judge Eli Garza","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District Courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties — Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria District Courts AI Standing Order (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:15.500809+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986":"f8c25703f07bdf94e7b02b4722986dd7ea38b2e68014808952dfbefb2da52103"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"This multi-county district-court order covers Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio, and Victoria Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research, drafting, or analysis must submit a certification that AI-created legal content was verified by a human using traditional legal sources.","title":"Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria District Courts AI Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-06-04","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit lawyers from using AI, but AI is now a 'relevant technology' for the duty of competence","Lawyers may bill only for time actually spent, not the time a task would have taken without AI; standard AI tool costs are usually non-billable overhead","Filing documents with fictitious citations, quotes or propositions of law implicates Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 3.1","A lawyer who learns a filing contains a hallucination must immediately notify the court and opposing counsel","A lawyer must comply with local rules and standing orders on the use and disclosure of AI tools (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4)","A judge should never use AI to decide the ultimate conclusion in a case and should avoid AI-produced first drafts of decisions or orders","Judges and staff must not enter confidential case information, or anything revealing judicial mental processes, into general or free public AI tools"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Ohio Board of Professional Conduct","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf"},{"label":"Supreme Court of Ohio, AI Resource Library","primary":true,"url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/"},{"label":"Court News Ohio (30 Jun 2026)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:58.870433+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf","https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp","https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf":"6e864c5aca3a250f1ae5f96fc3d7daeb4bbe270285caf29fdf5b739cf56d3ea8","https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp":"800b43f4025e3dd66658d0416b41866e86e3bbefedaafe1088e41c648c380317","https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/":"6283fe382e3c6116d5537a90f52b3fc9b403f74ad40f4cd4436c6fb98957e6bb"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Nonbinding Board staff guidance applying the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct to AI. It covers competence, confidentiality, client communication, independent professional judgment, fees, candor to the tribunal and hallucinated citations, supervision of staff and vendors, and a substantial judicial section on competence, independent decision-making, ex parte risk and confidentiality.","title":"Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Issued and distributed to Ohio lawyers and judicial officers","date":"2026-06-02","url":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Policy/model-rule framework; applicable part rule requires separate determination"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"New York State Unified Court System","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-06-01","id":"us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2026-03-25","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Part 161 states that AI use in preparing papers should not be prohibited when existing duties are met, and attorneys or parties should not be required to disclose AI use merely on submission. Courts may implement part rules; evidence is excluded from the defined term paper and requires separate analysis.","The text states a policy and permits part rules. Check the assigned court's adopted rule and case orders.","The model rule concerns careful review and signing responsibilities; do not label it a universal freestanding AI disclosure form."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["The text states a policy and permits part rules. Check the assigned court's adopted rule and case orders.","The model rule concerns careful review and signing responsibilities; do not label it a universal freestanding AI disclosure form."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Sections 161.1–161.4 and Appendix A","sha256":"bcc63f0a7b2f7119ffaf04449fcd9175e350697de775f4b927dc52aa57e5ac7c","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-ucs-2026-part-161-ai-technology","recordId":"us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["permissive","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification","other"],"scope":"New York Unified Court System, civil and criminal cases; papers as defined in section 161.2(b), excluding evidence.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology"},{"label":"Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/comments/pdf/AdministrativeOrder-CAJ-75-2026-ArttificialIntelligence-032526r.pdf"},{"label":"NYSBA notice on the new rule","primary":false,"url":"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:00.996297+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/","https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/comments/pdf/AdministrativeOrder-CAJ-75-2026-ArttificialIntelligence-032526r.pdf","https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/":"8eb6e01e5103f56de649ffd4a18fab8b02d8767da3d3891774513bb34d036b15","https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/comments/pdf/AdministrativeOrder-CAJ-75-2026-ArttificialIntelligence-032526r.pdf":null,"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"Part 161 states that AI use in preparing papers should not be prohibited when existing duties are met, and attorneys or parties should not be required to disclose AI use merely on submission. Courts may implement part rules; evidence is excluded from the defined term paper and requires separate analysis.","title":"22 NYCRR Part 161 — Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260802114549/https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Added to the Rules of the Chief Administrator by Administrative Order AO/75/26 dated 25 March 2026; effective 1 June 2026","date":"2026-06-01","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-staton-2026-civil-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-05-29","judge":"Judge Josephine L. Staton","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The civil order incorporates Judge Staton’s procedures page and includes a specific AI-use provision."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-staton-2026-civil-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-staton-2026-civil-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-staton-2026-civil-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Josephine L. Staton","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:51.518127+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c":"643aea5160b8d3dfa55e81e9329bfda00e09537b14b49c3b28ab1b2297970706"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Initial Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-29","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-staton-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-05-29","judge":"Judge Josephine L. Staton","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The criminal order requires review of Judge Staton’s procedures and includes the AI-use declaration requirement."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-staton-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-staton-2026-criminal-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-staton-2026-criminal-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Josephine L. Staton","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Order Re Criminal Proceedings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:49.598297+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c":"6eb9e775868b7ad70c32bc150a9b947b2e7ba9bea6690f7e591ac90d38eb10aa"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Order Re Criminal Proceedings requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Order Re Criminal Proceedings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-29","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","courtLevel":"state-supreme","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-06-15","id":"us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendment","issuedDate":"2026-05-28","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Rule 2.515 retitled Signature and Representations to Court","Rule 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer) amended to require the signer to account for generative AI-produced content","Signer representations include that the signer has read the document","Conforming amendments to rules 2.505, 2.520 and 2.525","Operative text (read from the archived opinion, 5 Sep 2026): the signer represents that the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited; the rule does not mention AI","Court Commentary: adopted principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for the circuits' varied administrative orders imposing AI disclosure and certification requirements"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl-supreme-court-2026-citation-verification","recordId":"us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendment"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendment","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Florida","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Opinion SC2026-0673 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf"},{"label":"Opinion index entry","primary":false,"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865530/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-general-practice-and-judicial/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:57.374435+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865530/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-general-practice-and-judicial/"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf":"932f9555e73fb4b1c39d6116c5db6d92a8335aa411d10263ff6c1380bcfe8e39","https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865530/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-general-practice-and-judicial/":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Florida moved from bar guidance to a binding filing rule. The Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) on 28 May 2026 to address generative AI tools in the representations a signer makes when filing a document, alongside conforming amendments to rules 2.505, 2.520 and 2.525.","title":"In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (generative AI), SC2026-0673","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260721172651/https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Amendment of rule 2.515(d)(2), rule retitled Signature and Representations to Court","date":"2026-05-28","url":"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","version":"SC2026-0673"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-njd-padin-2026-gai-human-review-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Evelyn Padin","keyProvisions":["All matters pending before Judge Padin, including pro se matters, are covered unless stated otherwise.","Any GAI use in court filings requires mandatory human-review certification.","The review should include correcting errors and eliminating hallucinations.","Noncompliance may lead to sanctions, striking, or bar referral."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"njd-padin-2026-gai-human-review-certification","recordId":"us-njd-padin-2026-gai-human-review-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-njd-padin-2026-gai-human-review-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey — Judge Evelyn Padin","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of New Jersey — General Pretrial and Trial Procedures: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:53.876293+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf":"d4e68ee4be614ee6130dfd838d2ab9dd7b5fbaf86140177d5a73fb61a64f6582"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf","state":"New Jersey","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Evelyn Padin’s revised May 28, 2026 general pretrial and trial procedures require mandatory certification for any generative AI use in court filings. The certification must state that the GAI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability, including correcting errors and eliminating hallucinations.","title":"General Pretrial and Trial Procedures: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-28","url":"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-05-27","id":"us-flmd-moe-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2026-05-27","judge":"Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe","keyProvisions":["Every filing must contain one of two verbatim certifications stating whether artificial intelligence was used.","Traditional Westlaw or LexisNexis research and traditional search engines are excluded from disclosure.","If AI was used, the certification must describe how it was used and state that the filer personally read every case.","Filings made before the order must receive a Rule 11 compliance certification or be withdrawn within ten days."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"flmd-moe-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-flmd-moe-2026-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-flmd-moe-2026-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida — Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Middle District of Florida — Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:43.402757+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf":"6cfa9e491f65396827b092e7d42545aa71e69966941fead311270f250f5a4775"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Moe of the Middle District of Florida requires every filing in the civil case to include a verbatim certification about AI use. The May 27, 2026 order requires disclosure and a description if AI was used, and requires the signer to personally read cited cases.","title":"Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-27","url":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Official source URL repaired; verify current document and case-specific applicability"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Official linked filename is Judge Olvera Local Rules (Civil) 10-06-26 .docx. No body issue date independently located. The official listing PDF link resolves to site root; no matching current PDF is established."},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Rolando Olvera","keyProvisions":["All attorneys and pro se litigants must file an AI certificate with the proposed scheduling order.","The certificate attests no GenAI drafting or human accuracy checking of AI-drafted language.","Failure to file the certificate can result in striking filings."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","recordId":"us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge Rolando Olvera","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Current official source document; version review required","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge%20Olvera%20Local%20Rules%20%28Civil%29%2010-06-26%20.docx"},{"label":"Previous reported source URL (retained for monitoring history)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:39.332496+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx":"4ef853b168035ab711317f0a818314472f8b80c9880cc905c225b0414cb32ce3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceRepairHistory":[{"newSourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge%20Olvera%20Local%20Rules%20%28Civil%29%2010-06-26%20.docx","observedAt":"2026-11-01T17:28:24.615021+00:00","previousRecord":{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","issuedDate":"2026-05-22","judge":"Judge Rolando Olvera","keyProvisions":["All attorneys and pro se litigants must file an AI certificate with the proposed scheduling order.","The certificate attests no GenAI drafting or human accuracy checking of AI-drafted language.","Failure to file the certificate can result in striking filings."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","recordId":"us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-olvera-2026-civil-generative-ai-certificate","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge Rolando Olvera","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — Judge Rolando Olvera Mandatory Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.450134+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Olvera’s current civil local rules require all attorneys and pro se litigants to file a generative-AI certificate with the proposed scheduling order. The certificate requires either no AI drafting of filings or human checking of any AI-drafted language, including citations and legal analysis, before submission.","title":"Judge Rolando Olvera Mandatory Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-22","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx","version":"Amended"}]},"reason":"Official linked filename is Judge Olvera Local Rules (Civil) 10-06-26 .docx. No body issue date independently located. The official listing PDF link resolves to site root; no matching current PDF is established. Civil Procedures/Local Rules, section 8.C contains mandatory AI certificate with proposed scheduling order, human verification alternative, and striking consequence. Current version is later than May 22, 2026 filename; full old/new equivalence not established. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary."}],"sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge%20Olvera%20Local%20Rules%20%28Civil%29%2010-06-26%20.docx","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Official source retrieved on 2026-11-01; document revision or relocation recorded. Current applicability requires review.","summary":"Judge Olvera’s current civil local rules require all attorneys and pro se litigants to file a generative-AI certificate with the proposed scheduling order. The certificate requires either no AI drafting of filings or human checking of any AI-drafted language, including citations and legal analysis, before submission.","title":"Judge Rolando Olvera Mandatory Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-22","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx","version":"Amended"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Direct official-source retrieval; applicability review required","changes":"Official linked filename is Judge Olvera Local Rules (Civil) 10-06-26 .docx. No body issue date independently located. The official listing PDF link resolves to site root; no matching current PDF is established. Civil Procedures/Local Rules, section 8.C contains mandatory AI certificate with proposed scheduling order, human verification alternative, and striking consequence. Current version is later than May 22, 2026 filename; full old/new equivalence not established. NEW VERSION; REVIEW_REQUIRED; not automatic validation of prior summary.","date":null,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge%20Olvera%20Local%20Rules%20%28Civil%29%2010-06-26%20.docx","version":"Source repair 2026-11-01"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-05-19","id":"us-fl11-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":"2026-05-19","judge":"Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan","keyProvisions":["AI may assist preparation, research, drafting, document review, filing review, discovery review, and discovery requests.","Use of generative AI to draft or generate content used in a filing or record must be disclosed.","The certification states the filer has read and verified citations, record citations, drafted language, quotations, facts, and legal analysis.","Disclosure is not required for routine research, cite-checking, or grammar, spelling, and clarity edits.","The order vacates and supersedes Administrative Order No. 26-04."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl11-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-fl11-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl11-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida — Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida — Administrative Order No. 26-15: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf":"933828dd55e27678292a3a50dbc17c8b894df0a58e38f34766b553424fd72492"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida requires attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose generative AI use when it drafts or generates content used in court filings or records. Effective May 19, 2026, the required certification covers citations, record citations, drafted language, facts, and legal analysis.","title":"Administrative Order No. 26-15: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-19","url":"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Federal Rules of Evidence / Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-fre-court-2026-proposed-rule-707","issuedDate":"2026-05-17","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies when evidence is a product of artificial intelligence and is offered without an expert witness but would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness.","Requires the proponent to establish helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application.","Ordinarily requires an expert to explain how the AI system reliably produced the evidence, with exceptional circumstances for other proof.","Makes the evidence admissible only if the proponent gives adverse parties reasonable notice of the intent to offer it.","The committee decided not to release the revised draft for a new public comment period at that time and planned further AI expert vetting."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fre-court-2026-proposed-rule-707","recordId":"us-fre-court-2026-proposed-rule-707"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-fre-court-2026-proposed-rule-707","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Federal Rules of Evidence / Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Federal Rules of Evidence / Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules — Proposed Rule 707: Evidence Produced by Artificial Intelligence and Presented at Trial Without an Expert (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:18.611649+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf":"8c2ed205cb1674eccf1bc4b76361d6cb995a70260eab7cc9fa692f2584529676"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf","state":null,"status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules reported a revised proposed Rule 707 that would regulate AI-produced evidence offered at trial without an expert witness, require the proponent to establish Rule 702-style reliability, ordinarily require expert explanation, and require reasonable notice to adverse parties.","title":"Proposed Rule 707: Evidence Produced by Artificial Intelligence and Presented at Trial Without an Expert","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-17","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"25th and 2nd 25th District Courts of Texas","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-05-12","id":"us-tx-colorado-lavaca-25th-districts-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-05-12","judge":"Judge William D. Old III; Judge Jessica Crawford","keyProvisions":["GenAI users must include a bold verification in pleadings.","The verification identifies the programs used and how they were used.","The order prohibits confidential inputs, AI-created evidence, AI voice-translation interpreters, and AI-reliant experts."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-colorado-lavaca-25th-districts-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-colorado-lavaca-25th-districts-2026-generative-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-colorado-lavaca-25th-districts-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"25th and 2nd 25th District Courts of Texas — Judge William D. Old III; Judge Jessica Crawford","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"25th and 2nd 25th District Courts of Texas — 25th and 2nd 25th District Courts Standing Order on Use of Generative AI (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2975"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2975"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2975":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2975","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The 25th and 2nd 25th District Courts’ generative-AI order requires AI users to include a bold pleading verification listing programs used and describing the use for work product, research, or drafting. It also imposes confidentiality protections and prohibits AI-created evidence, AI-reliant interpreters, and AI-reliant expert opinions.","title":"25th and 2nd 25th District Courts Standing Order on Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-12","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2975","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-subramanian-2026-chatgpt-accuracy","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Arun Subramanian","keyProvisions":["Counsel is responsible for accurate representations of the record, history, and legal authorities.","Use of ChatGPT or similar tools is not prohibited.","Counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of research conducted with those tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-subramanian-2026-chatgpt-accuracy","recordId":"us-nysd-subramanian-2026-chatgpt-accuracy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-subramanian-2026-chatgpt-accuracy","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Arun Subramanian","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Practices in Civil Cases: Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:55.691421+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf":"1900a268384cf0498559c1e93925f0cfda33860fd6893f72b223ee85a328c627"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Arun Subramanian’s civil individual practices, revised May 11, 2026, state that use of ChatGPT or similar tools is not prohibited. Counsel remain responsible for complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and legal authorities, and must personally confirm the accuracy of research done with those tools.","title":"Individual Practices in Civil Cases: Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-11","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Collin County District Courts","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-07-01","id":"us-tx-collin-district-courts-2026-local-rules-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2026-05-06","judge":"Collin County District Judges","keyProvisions":["AI users must ensure AI-generated information is accurate and correctly portrayed to the court.","The rule covers legal research or drafting in connection with a case.","No separate disclosure or certificate appears in the AI rule text."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-collin-district-courts-2026-local-rules-ai-filings","recordId":"us-tx-collin-district-courts-2026-local-rules-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-collin-district-courts-2026-local-rules-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Collin County District Courts — Judge Collin County District Judges","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Collin County District Courts — Collin County District Courts Local Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:23.932905+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015":"6585654469e62ae0c72f3136069a7ba4c061d4e4d08b02215517a162912c2900"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Collin County District Courts’ 2026 local rules include a short AI-in-filings rule. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must ensure that AI-generated information used in a court submission or proceeding is accurate and correctly portrayed to the court.","title":"Collin County District Courts Local Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-05-06","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Alabama State Bar, Office of General Counsel","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Independently verify every legal citation generated by AI against an authoritative database before filing (ARPC 1.1, 3.1, 3.3)","Input into most generative AI platforms is disclosure; prefer enterprise or closed systems, anonymise prompts, and obtain informed consent where risk cannot be eliminated (ARPC 1.6)","No Alabama rule mandates disclosure of AI use to clients in all circumstances, but proactive communication is prudent (ARPC 1.4)","A lawyer may bill only for time actually spent; review and judgment time is billable, time saved by AI is not (ARPC 1.5)","AI is to be supervised like a nonlawyer assistant; the supervising lawyer remains fully responsible for the work product (ARPC 5.1, 5.3)","Check each court's local rules and standing orders for AI disclosure or certification requirements before filing"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01","publisherRequirements":["verification","confidentiality","competence","supervision","consent"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Alabama State Bar, Office of General Counsel","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Formal Opinion 2026-01 (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf"},{"label":"Landing page","primary":false,"url":"https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:24.496563+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf":"57a6d54ab00d3cd75c9d2b41fdc7cbf4d606ae2cfc51cf23c880fc51d8ad0dc0","https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/":"73e4a0ef065e7796328f5a1be54ea6b5310d5dd3359e3e96ce404c565c0ba687"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","state":"Alabama","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Alabama State Bar's first formal opinion on AI. It applies ARPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 to generative and agentic AI, requires independent verification of AI citations before filing, prefers enterprise or closed AI systems, bars billing for AI time savings, and supplies a compliance checklist.","title":"Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01: Artificial Intelligence Use — Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication; the source gives a month only (published May 2026), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2026-05-01","url":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","version":"FO 2026-01"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Williamson County District Courts and County Courts at Law","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2024-05-09","id":"us-tx-williamson-county-2024-local-rules-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2024-05-09","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI users must ensure AI-generated information is accurate and correctly portrayed.","A Certificate Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence must be attached to any filing where AI-generated information is used.","The certificate requires traditional-source verification of AI-created legal content."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-williamson-county-2024-local-rules-ai-filings","recordId":"us-tx-williamson-county-2024-local-rules-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-williamson-county-2024-local-rules-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Williamson County District Courts and County Courts at Law","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Williamson County District Courts and County Courts at Law — Williamson County Local Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928":"c0b353c3e8b21a1fc495bf867ad8a05e0b95d223db5f03be84a0a96227832fdd"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Williamson County local rules contain a dedicated AI-in-filings section. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must ensure AI-generated information is accurate and must attach a certificate to any filing where AI-generated information is used. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.","title":"Williamson County Local Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-14","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":true,"humanEditingDoesNotRemoveTrigger":true,"noUseCertificate":true,"placement":"End of filing","trigger":"Every filing","verifyAllAIPortions":true,"verifyCitations":true},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Date shown in reviewed primary source"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-04-02","id":"us-md-fla-berger-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-04-02","judge":"Wendy W. Berger","keyProvisions":["Every filing before Judge Wendy W. Berger must end with either a no-generative-AI certification or a certification of human accuracy review of AI-drafted language, including later-edited language, and authentic, accurately represented legal citations.","Certification goes at the end of the filing and does not count toward page limits.","Do not carry this judge-specific requirement to every judge in the district."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["Certification goes at the end of the filing and does not count toward page limits.","Do not carry this judge-specific requirement to every judge in the district."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Pages 1–2","sha256":"7fb311140cc838feccf1135e8430822e94e7aaca3f03857f5069dafa4918edef","sourceUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"flmd-berger-2026-genai-certification","recordId":"us-md-fla-berger-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-10-05","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-md-fla-berger-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["verification","certification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Parties appearing before Judge Wendy W. Berger, through counsel or self-represented; every filing.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:41.217744+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf":"c9c35c88a777dae2758499f414b8fbf34d143688605bf2ef729170d359017e81"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"Every filing before Judge Wendy W. Berger must end with either a no-generative-AI certification or a certification of human accuracy review of AI-drafted language, including later-edited language, and authentic, accurately represented legal citations.","title":"Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W. Berger)","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260518161814/https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-02","url":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-bannon-2026-genai-certification-remote-ai-ban","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Nancy M. Bannon","keyProvisions":["Motion, hearing, trial, and permitted letter submissions must include a GenAI certification.","If GenAI was used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed and approved.","The program, documents, and portions drafted by GenAI must be identified.","Use of any AI program during a remote oral argument, conference, or appearance is strictly prohibited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-bannon-2026-genai-certification-remote-ai-ban","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-bannon-2026-genai-certification-remote-ai-ban"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-bannon-2026-genai-certification-remote-ai-ban","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Judge Nancy M. Bannon","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Term — Part 61 Rules: Generative Artificial Intelligence Certification and Remote-Appearance Ban (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part61-rules.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part61-rules.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part61-rules.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part61-rules.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Nancy M. Bannon’s Part 61 rules, last updated April 2026, require certifications for all motion, hearing, trial, and permitted letter submissions stating whether generative AI was used. If used, the certification must identify the program, documents, and portions drafted, and remote appearances may not use any AI program.","title":"Part 61 Rules: Generative Artificial Intelligence Certification and Remote-Appearance Ban","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-01","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/courts/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/part61-rules.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"284th District Court of Montgomery County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-04-01","id":"us-tx-montgomery-284th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-04-01","judge":"Judge Kristin Bays","keyProvisions":["GenAI users must include a bold verification in pleadings.","The verification discloses programs used and the role of AI in work product, research, or drafting.","The order prohibits sensitive information, AI-created evidence, AI voice-translation interpreters, and AI-reliant expert methodology."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-montgomery-284th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-montgomery-284th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-montgomery-284th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"284th District Court of Montgomery County — Judge Kristin Bays","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"284th District Court of Montgomery County — 284th District Court Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:08.024609+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906":"45c67dffdb4e41a0385c8487edcff8c5fd7bda5da848c6f916051479c2403402"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Bays’s 284th District Court order mirrors the Montgomery County generative-AI verification format. Pleadings using generative AI must include a bold verification listing the AI program and use, certifying accuracy and confidentiality, and confirming no AI-created, edited, enhanced, or altered evidence is attached.","title":"284th District Court Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"457th District Court of Montgomery County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-04-01","id":"us-tx-montgomery-457th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-04-01","judge":"Judge Vincenzo J. Santini","keyProvisions":["GenAI users must include a bold verification in their pleadings.","The verification lists programs used and whether used for work product, research, or drafting.","The verification certifies no misstatements, improper citations, confidential information, or AI-created evidence."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-montgomery-457th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-montgomery-457th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-montgomery-457th-district-2026-generative-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"457th District Court of Montgomery County — Judge Vincenzo J. Santini","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"457th District Court of Montgomery County — 457th District Court Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:14.602720+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905":"b2d34405f5f88e4f855e19708e3ad6855eca290b7c31c806a0b259a10ac12d6d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Santini’s 457th District Court order requires any attorney or self-represented litigant using generative AI in work product, research, or drafting to include a bold verification in pleadings. The order also prohibits sensitive inputs, AI-created or altered evidence, AI-reliant interpreters, and AI-reliant expert methodology.","title":"457th District Court Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-kazen-2026-civil-generative-ai-procedures","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge John A. Kazen","keyProvisions":["Civil procedures require review of AI-assisted filings for factual and legal accuracy.","The procedures remind signers that Rule 11 responsibility remains theirs.","The section adopts SDTX General Order 2025-04 by reference."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-kazen-2026-civil-generative-ai-procedures","recordId":"us-txsd-kazen-2026-civil-generative-ai-procedures"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-kazen-2026-civil-generative-ai-procedures","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge John A. Kazen","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — Judge John A. Kazen Civil Court Procedures Section 8 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:14.082432+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf":"b4e3631e538a98f5a9a997187a0b744e7b296852a9c5211bf2ef1c153bdd9dc3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kazen’s civil procedures mirror the district-wide AI warnings in a judge-specific civil practice document. The procedures direct attorneys and self-represented litigants to thoroughly review AI-assisted filings before submission and state that AI, staff, or other assistance will not excuse Rule 11 or ethical violations.","title":"Judge John A. Kazen Civil Court Procedures Section 8","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-04-01","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Oklahoma Supreme Court","courtLevel":"state-supreme","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ok-supreme-court-2026-generative-ai-order","issuedDate":"2026-03-23","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The court does not discourage AI use if it complies with legal and ethical standards.","Disclosure of AI assistance is not required in legal filings.","All filers remain responsible for document content and accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ok-supreme-court-2026-generative-ai-order","recordId":"us-ok-supreme-court-2026-generative-ai-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ok-supreme-court-2026-generative-ai-order","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Oklahoma Supreme Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Oklahoma Supreme Court — Oklahoma Supreme Court Order Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.976295+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf":"81ba252dcc3b49f30fdeb229f3dcc63cac5c82604975d75ef8fc8e405766c95c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf","state":"Oklahoma","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s 2026 OK 19 order is a statewide policy statement on generative AI. It expects increasing AI use, does not discourage compliant use, expressly states that disclosure of AI assistance is not required in legal filings, and makes all filers responsible for content and accuracy.","title":"Oklahoma Supreme Court Order Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-03-23","url":"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"New Mexico Supreme Court","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nm-supreme-court-2026-ai-notetaking-memorandum","issuedDate":"2026-03-16","judge":"Chief Justice David K. Thomson","keyProvisions":["Third-party AI note-taking applications are prohibited during in-person and virtual meetings.","Judges and judicial branch employees may remove participants using AI note-taking in virtual meetings.","Chief judges and CEOs were ordered to distribute the memorandum."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nm-supreme-court-2026-ai-notetaking-memorandum","recordId":"us-nm-supreme-court-2026-ai-notetaking-memorandum"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nm-supreme-court-2026-ai-notetaking-memorandum","publisherRequirements":["prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["prohibition"],"scope":"New Mexico Supreme Court — Judge David K. Thomson","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New Mexico Supreme Court — New Mexico Supreme Court Memorandum on AI Note-Taking Applications (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:53.576020+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf":"d29bf3cb7faac635bb704dac281216b4a086b202313464a0bbf980c82cf69612"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf","state":"New Mexico","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Chief Justice Thomson’s memorandum gives official direction to New Mexico justices, judges, and judicial branch employees regarding third-party AI note-taking applications. It prohibits those applications during all in-person and virtual meetings, authorizes removal of participants using them, and warns of disciplinary action.","title":"New Mexico Supreme Court Memorandum on AI Note-Taking Applications","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-03-16","url":"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2023-05-31","id":"us-nd-ill-fuentes-standing-order-genai","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Gabriel A. Fuentes","keyProvisions":["Artificial Intelligence section (current, p. 17): the Court refers all counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court's policy on artificial intelligence use effective 1 January 2025.","The Court expects that no counsel will submit hallucinated authorities and that all counsel will follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.","The pre-existing Rule 11 certification is presumed to be the filer's representation that they themselves have read and analysed all cited authorities and that the filing complies with Rule 11(b)(2).","Superseded (31 May 2023 version): parties had to disclose generative AI use in the filing and identify the tool."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-21","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ilnd-fuentes-2025-ai-rule-11-certification","recordId":"us-nd-ill-fuentes-standing-order-genai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-21","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nd-ill-fuentes-standing-order-genai","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"N.D. Ill. — Standing Order for Civil Cases before Magistrate Judge Fuentes, with appendix (PDF; image scan, read by OCR 16 Sep 2026)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:53.453422+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf":"a96acb476e7f5ebd5bec1e97627afb84ed227d54484bd98f43a1b4a50c4213d2"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Standing order for civil cases before Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes, Northern District of Illinois. The 31 May 2023 revision required parties to disclose generative AI use and name the tool; the current order (PDF dated 4 March 2026) drops that duty, refers counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy and relies on the Rule 11 certification.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases (generative AI provision), Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260916194243/https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"The Artificial Intelligence section (p. 17 of the current PDF, file dated 4 March 2026) no longer requires parties to disclose generative AI use or name the tool. It refers counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court policy on AI effective 1 January 2025, states that the Court expects no hallucinated authorities and Rule 11 compliance, and treats the existing Rule 11 certification as the filer's representation that they have read and analysed every cited authority. Date is the PDF's creation date; the order prints no revision date.","date":"2026-03-04","url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","version":"Current (Artificial Intelligence section revised)"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Version as recorded from the 31 May 2023 revision: any party using a generative AI tool to prepare a filing had to disclose that use and identify the tool.","date":"2023-05-31","url":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","version":"Original (disclosure required)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cod-kane-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge John L. Kane","keyProvisions":["Every filing prepared in whole or part using generative AI must include a certification.","The certification must identify the portion of the filing prepared with generative AI.","The filer must affirm human review of AI-drafted language for accuracy using print reporters or traditional databases.","The filer must attest that legal citations are to actual cases or cited authority.","Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 remain applicable."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cod-kane-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cod-kane-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cod-kane-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado — Judge John L. Kane","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Colorado — Pretrial and Trial Procedures Memorandum for Civil Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:36.008252+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf":"3b017a53c7566ce55e5e0dc10e580e7cab4cb301451b400a306bfcba44310752"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge John L. Kane’s revised District of Colorado civil pretrial and trial procedures require a certification in every filing prepared in whole or part with generative AI. The certification identifies AI-prepared portions, confirms human accuracy review using traditional sources, and attests citations are real.","title":"Pretrial and Trial Procedures Memorandum for Civil Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-03-01","url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-02-20","id":"us-ga-fulton-whitaker-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2026-02-20","judge":"Judge Paige Reese Whitaker","keyProvisions":["The order applies to written submissions in criminal and civil dockets and to oral submissions in open court.","AI use to generate, draft, prepare, or review a written filing must be disclosed in the document.","The certification identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review plus citation accuracy.","AI-assisted oral submissions must also be independently reviewed for accuracy, citations, and existing law."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-whitaker-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-whitaker-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-whitaker-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Paige Reese Whitaker","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding the Use of AI in Judge Whitaker’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:21.826325+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf":"d4be4f1fff0de208282e44c1e10d1a10a02b65fe65da1d86f029169c2fe25920"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Whitaker of Fulton County Superior Court requires AI disclosure and certification for written filings, and imposes review duties for AI-assisted oral submissions. The February 20, 2026 order applies in criminal and civil dockets to attorneys and self-represented litigants. It was on the court's website when read on 6 September 2026; the court's text is the record.","title":"Standing Order Regarding the Use of AI in Judge Whitaker’s Division","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-20","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Belinda E. Edwards","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-02-19","id":"us-ga-fulton-edwards-2026-ai-filing-notice","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Belinda E. Edwards 2026 Standing Case Management Order for Civil Cases in Judge Edwards’ Division: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom","keyProvisions":["All parties should note whether AI was used to prepare or draft a filing at the end of each filing.","Attorneys and pro se litigants using AI must be aware the court may act if hallucinated or fictitious citations appear.","The order lists striking pleadings, sanctions, and disciplinary referrals as possible actions.","Mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints are not accepted as good-faith excuses for hallucinated citations."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ga-fulton-edwards-2026-ai-filing-notice"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-edwards-2026-ai-filing-notice","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Belinda E. Edwards","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":null,"reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":[],"status":"PENDING","textHashes":{}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Edwards of Fulton County Superior Court includes an AI-use section in her 2026 civil standing case management order. The February 19, 2026 order tells parties to note AI use at the end of filings and warns of sanctions or referrals for hallucinated or fictitious citations.","title":"2026 Standing Case Management Order for Civil Cases in Judge Edwards’ Division: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-19","url":null,"version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies to any document filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals","Where generative AI has been used, every portion produced or modified by it must be verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document","Generative AI is defined as any type of AI that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user","Failure to comply may result in waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of the non-compliant document from the record, and/or a finding of contempt"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["verification","certification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"2026 OK CR 7 (official)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/"},{"label":"OCCA Court Rules index (official)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.okcca.net/rules/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:00.983317+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","https://www.okcca.net/rules/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/":"b50eda5ba9a5f55e73290b65f9198e220f7c761700abc3c1366dd21ce2f16c24","https://www.okcca.net/rules/":"10d474ff2333e7f768653fe00a7690243ede28a6b5de5c66ae431634aa996f86"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","state":"Oklahoma","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Rule 1.17 requires that where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure every AI-produced or AI-modified portion has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. Non-compliance may lead to waiver, striking of the document, or contempt.","title":"Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 1.17 — Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260607172109/https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Adopted by order In re: Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 2026 OK CR 7","date":"2026-02-18","url":"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-cisneros-2026-technological-assistance","issuedDate":"2026-02-17","judge":"Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros","keyProvisions":["Parties are not categorically prohibited from using lawful technological assistance, including AI.","Attorneys and unrepresented parties must understand limitations of tools they use.","The court imputes computer-based tool errors to the signer.","Failure to verify briefs and citations may support sanctions or striking a filing."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-cisneros-2026-technological-assistance","recordId":"us-cand-cisneros-2026-technological-assistance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-cisneros-2026-technological-assistance","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Lisa J. Cisneros","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Civil Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:28.959248+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf":"8825f7fa94dfb731d18023345b86b5fbd35055ebee8dce70c17a83a2e0c80962"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros’s civil standing order states that parties may use lawful technological assistance, including AI tools, for research or drafting. Attorneys and unrepresented parties remain responsible for submissions, and failure to verify briefs and citations may lead to sanctions or striking.","title":"Civil Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-17","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Indiana Supreme Court, Office of Judicial Administration","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-in-supreme-court-trial-court-ai-toolkit","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Toolkit for Indiana trial courts adopting local AI policies (contents not yet verified)","Follows creation of the Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee in autumn 2024","Attorney-facing guidance still pending as of September 2026"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-in-supreme-court-trial-court-ai-toolkit"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-in-supreme-court-trial-court-ai-toolkit","publisherRequirements":["risk-classification","supervision"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Indiana Supreme Court, Office of Judicial Administration","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Indiana Court Times, AI toolkit","primary":true,"url":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/"},{"label":"Indiana Court Times, Guardrails for the Future","primary":true,"url":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.952881+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/","https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/":"fecfecc54a8c94c4e0a3f10dbf94a0a6458138261b76a771db93b3ca3d381a35","https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/":"c1d34799f33a4f35aec3dad7e7aef0efe2b44e34dcf26c20e2c9eea69de0c7af"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/","state":"Indiana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Indiana's judiciary is governing AI administratively rather than by rule. An AI Governance Committee was formed in autumn 2024 and an AI policy toolkit for trial courts was released in February 2026; attorney-facing guidance is still pending. Contents were not verified in this run.","title":"Indiana Supreme Court Office of Judicial Administration: trial-court AI policy toolkit","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Released to Indiana trial courts","date":"2026-02-17","url":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/","version":"Toolkit"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-02-13","id":"us-fl18-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":"2026-02-13","judge":"Chief Judge Melanie Chase","keyProvisions":["Generative AI use in preparing a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or court record must be disclosed on the face of the filing.","The filing must certify that factual assertions, legal authority, and citations were independently reviewed and verified for accuracy.","The order prohibits fabricated or hallucinated authority, reliance on AI-generated citations without verification, and failure to disclose.","Administrative Order 26-24 rescinded this order on June 1, 2026 after the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515(d)(2)."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl18-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-fl18-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl18-court-2026-generative-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"withdrawn","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida — Judge Melanie Chase","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida — Administrative Order No. 26-10: Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:57.776270+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf":"154bb2b0831aa1a915ebf1c2f77a84021186ef2a9f3824678e7fce6e3505ccd2"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"withdrawn","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida required attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose generative AI use on filings and certify independent accuracy review. Administrative Order 26-10 took effect February 13, 2026, but was rescinded by Administrative Order 26-24 on June 1, 2026.","title":"Administrative Order No. 26-10: Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-13","url":"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-gand-grimberg-2026-ai-responsibility","issuedDate":"2026-02-10","judge":"Judge Steven D. Grimberg","keyProvisions":["The civil standing order says parties may use whatever AI tools they like.","The order states that only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome.","Parties and lawyers remain responsible for factual or legal errors in pleadings and papers.","The standing order applies to civil cases assigned to Judge Steven D. Grimberg."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"gand-grimberg-2026-ai-responsibility","recordId":"us-gand-grimberg-2026-ai-responsibility"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-gand-grimberg-2026-ai-responsibility","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia — Judge Steven D. Grimberg","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation: Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:44.010340+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf":"f9a154f224aa02703d596f3c0c97fa8554f92e8346b1d9669f3a938de91a2a00"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Grimberg of the Northern District of Georgia permits use of AI tools in civil cases but states that human beings remain responsible for filed work. The February 2026 standing order does not require AI disclosure or certification, and it warns parties and lawyers to govern themselves accordingly.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-10","url":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["all","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"90th Judicial District Court of Texas","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-02-10","id":"us-tx-90th-district-2026-artificial-intelligence-standing-order","issuedDate":"2026-02-10","judge":"Judge Phillip Gregory","keyProvisions":["Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must include a certificate in each AI-generated pleading.","The certificate requires traditional-source accuracy verification of AI-created language, citations, arguments, and legal analysis.","AI recording, listening, or transcription in courtrooms and court offices is prohibited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-90th-district-2026-artificial-intelligence-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-90th-district-2026-artificial-intelligence-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-90th-district-2026-artificial-intelligence-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"90th Judicial District Court of Texas — Judge Phillip Gregory","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"90th Judicial District Court of Texas — 90th Judicial District Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:55.038717+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf":"9a591f69c8e5671650c68d22676c59247262832241fa79da56726eb30766ceb6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The 90th Judicial District standing order applies to all pending and future cases in Young and Stephens Counties. It requires a certificate in each pleading generated with AI, certifying traditional-source verification of AI-created content, and separately prohibits AI recording, listening, or transcription in courtrooms and court offices.","title":"90th Judicial District Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-10","url":"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Texas Business Court, First Division","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"practice-direction","effectiveDate":"2026-02-05","id":"us-tx-business-court-whitehill-2026-ai-notetakers-guidelines","issuedDate":"2026-02-05","judge":"Judge Bill Whitehill","keyProvisions":["Judge Whitehill’s guidelines state AI notetakers may not join virtual conferences.","The restriction appears in the Early Management and Accessibility section.","The guidelines otherwise direct parties to follow Texas Business Court local rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-business-court-whitehill-2026-ai-notetakers-guidelines","recordId":"us-tx-business-court-whitehill-2026-ai-notetakers-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-business-court-whitehill-2026-ai-notetakers-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["prohibition"],"scope":"Texas Business Court, First Division — Judge Bill Whitehill","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Texas Business Court, First Division — Judge Whitehill Guidelines: AI Notetakers (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:12.690867+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810":"18926efd885168d769be11713bf2d789c330a8e6df2010a43c36c7b98cb8919b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Whitehill’s Texas Business Court Division 1B guidelines include a specific AI notetaker rule. The guidelines do not regulate AI drafting of filings, but they prohibit AI notetakers from joining virtual conferences, functioning as a judge-specific courtroom or proceeding access rule.","title":"Judge Whitehill Guidelines: AI Notetakers","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-05","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-vankeulen-2026-ai-submissions","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen","keyProvisions":["Generative AI use in court submissions is not prohibited.","Counsel and self-represented parties must personally confirm the accuracy of AI-generated content.","A signature on a submission containing AI-generated content is a certification of personal verification.","Errors by AI tools are imputed to the signer.","Counsel must maintain records of prompts or inquiries if they become relevant."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-vankeulen-2026-ai-submissions","recordId":"us-cand-vankeulen-2026-ai-submissions"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-vankeulen-2026-ai-submissions","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification","record-keeping"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","record-keeping","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Susan van Keulen","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Civil and Discovery Referral Matters Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:10.704732+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf":"602ad966115890766535823e415a75bd8db92ee82ab008f316c8dad05029859a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen’s updated civil and discovery referral standing order permits generative AI use in submissions but treats the signer’s signature as a certification that AI-generated content was personally verified. The order also requires prompt records if they become relevant.","title":"Civil and Discovery Referral Matters Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-01","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Oregon Circuit Court for Jackson County","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-or-jackson-2026-ai-public-guide","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The guide says generative AI can help write drafts, forms, and court papers.","It instructs users to make sure the court allows AI use.","It advises users to double-check everything AI provides and ask for sources.","It warns AI is not a lawyer and may provide wrong answers.","It says users should not share personal or private information."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"or-jackson-2026-ai-public-guide","recordId":"us-or-jackson-2026-ai-public-guide"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-or-jackson-2026-ai-public-guide","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Oregon Circuit Court for Jackson County","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Oregon Circuit Court for Jackson County — Planning to Use Artificial Intelligence (AI): Read This First (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:39.454982+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf":"4c68de29750da5fd428533605f1fa1dbfbfb6160bb88c714388849f7e4ff47f0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf","state":"Oregon","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Oregon Judicial Department’s Jackson County public guide explains that generative AI may help with drafts, forms, and court papers but must be used carefully. It advises users to confirm court permission, double-check AI output and sources, consult an attorney, and avoid sharing personal information.","title":"Planning to Use Artificial Intelligence (AI): Read This First","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-01","url":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-paed-kearney-2026-ai-hallucination-warning","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Mark A. Kearney","keyProvisions":["The policies apply to all matters unless varied by order.","False representations, including AI hallucinations, may subject parties and counsel to sanctions.","Parties and counsel are on notice to double-check citations and reliance on AI in filings."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"paed-kearney-2026-ai-hallucination-warning","recordId":"us-paed-kearney-2026-ai-hallucination-warning"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-paed-kearney-2026-ai-hallucination-warning","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Mark A. Kearney","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Policies and Procedures: Requirements for Website References and Artificial Intelligence Use (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:09.153098+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf":"bec668d7094866829a652a8eda1a057c36bd60bd75eb9f6616124b34788418f2"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Mark A. Kearney’s February 2026 policies and procedures warn parties and counsel that false representations, including artificial-intelligence hallucinations, may lead to sanctions under professional-conduct and civil or criminal procedure rules. The policies put parties and counsel on notice to double-check citations and reliance on AI in filings.","title":"Policies and Procedures: Requirements for Website References and Artificial Intelligence Use","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-02-01","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ksd-court-2026-standing-order-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2026-01-28","judge":"Chief Judge John W. Broomes","keyProvisions":["Filers must review and verify AI-drafted or AI-assisted content.","The order expressly includes citations, quotations, legal analysis, and factual background.","The court may require a sworn AI-use statement in any case."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ksd-court-2026-standing-order-ai-filings","recordId":"us-ksd-court-2026-standing-order-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ksd-court-2026-standing-order-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas — Judge John W. Broomes","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Kansas — Standing Order 26-01 on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf":"76d367ca9d9c5242103e0c7e7e55ee4e5501c874afcdb7e9faedb5fce9d22c8c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf","state":"Kansas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Chief Judge Broomes’s District of Kansas standing order cautions all lawyers and parties, including pro se litigants, about AI-created false statements and fabricated authorities. It makes filers responsible for reviewing and verifying AI-drafted or assisted content and reserves discretion to require sworn AI-use disclosures.","title":"Standing Order 26-01 on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-28","url":"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["family"],"court":"Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at Law","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-01-22","id":"us-tx-lubbock-county-2026-family-standing-order-ai-liability","issuedDate":"2026-01-22","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Family standing order includes a short AI liability section.","All attorneys and self-represented litigants remain responsible for filing accuracy.","Reliance on AI-generated fabricated citations or facts may result in sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-lubbock-county-2026-family-standing-order-ai-liability","recordId":"us-tx-lubbock-county-2026-family-standing-order-ai-liability"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-lubbock-county-2026-family-standing-order-ai-liability","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at Law","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at Law — Lubbock County Standing Order Regarding Children, Property, Conduct, and AI Liability (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:25.243395+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791":"c2d9ae9fb57ef64bebd775707e5762a3aa84156e3cc563a5843a3e956e796f5f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Lubbock County’s standing order regarding children, property, and conduct of parties includes an AI liability provision. It does not require disclosure or certification, but it warns attorneys and self-represented litigants that they remain responsible for filing accuracy and may be sanctioned for AI-generated false citations or facts.","title":"Lubbock County Standing Order Regarding Children, Property, Conduct, and AI Liability","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-22","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-01-15","id":"us-fl11-court-2026-nonapproved-ai-platforms","issuedDate":"2026-01-15","judge":"Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan","keyProvisions":["Court personnel may not access, use, or input information into non-approved generative AI platforms for court business.","Non-approved platforms include public OpenAI tools, consumer web AI platforms, and tools lacking court-level privacy assurances.","Approved tools include court-authorized enterprise tools such as Microsoft Copilot and Westlaw AI-Assisted Research.","Approved tools must be accessed through authorized court systems and used under court technology and security policies."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl11-court-2026-nonapproved-ai-platforms","recordId":"us-fl11-court-2026-nonapproved-ai-platforms"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl11-court-2026-nonapproved-ai-platforms","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida — Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida — Administrative Order No. 26-03: Prohibition on Use of Non-Approved Generative Artificial Intelligence Platforms by Court Personnel (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.762573+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf":"39ecc277bf6bfbf56addc8f2a32db5704f1a8272638fd724e2b63c476626a26e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida prohibits court personnel from using non-approved generative AI platforms for court business, effective January 15, 2026. Approved enterprise tools may be used through authorized court systems if users follow technology and security policies and remain responsible for work product.","title":"Administrative Order No. 26-03: Prohibition on Use of Non-Approved Generative Artificial Intelligence Platforms by Court Personnel","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-15","url":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Colorado Supreme Court","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-01-08","id":"us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendments","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Scope [20A]: technology including artificial intelligence does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities under the Rules, and a lawyer who uses technology directly or indirectly may be disciplined for a resulting violation","Comment [8] to Rule 1.1: lawyers must keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology","Comment [9] to Rule 1.1: AI use can implicate Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1 and 8.4(g)","Comment [9]: reliance on technology does not diminish the lawyer's duty to exercise independent judgment","Adopted en banc 8 January 2026, effective immediately"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendments"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendments","publisherRequirements":["competence","supervision","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other"],"scope":"Colorado Supreme Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Rule Change 2026(02) (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf"},{"label":"Colorado Lawyer analysis (CBA official publication)","primary":false,"url":"https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:55.483294+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct/","https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct/":"453f373a352ff5469259b1e7962f94621018f8df0665c41d83f3940d7ae6a4f4","https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf":"369e2209600dc81176d70876d3abbd5a385b48a6decc65be12b23d07f1ff756c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Colorado became the first US jurisdiction to amend its lawyer ethics rules specifically for AI. Scope [20A] confirms technology does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities and that misuse is disciplinable; Comment [9] to Rule 1.1 enumerates the rules AI implicates and preserves the duty of independent judgment.","title":"Colorado Rule Change 2026(02): AI amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Amended and adopted en banc, effective immediately","date":"2026-01-08","url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf","version":"Rule Change 2026(02)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-ho-2026-civil-genai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-01-08","judge":"Dale E. Ho","keyProvisions":["Applies to civil matters before Judge Ho except civil pro se cases.","Use of generative AI to generate any portion of a filing triggers a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-ho-2026-civil-genai-declaration","recordId":"us-nysd-ho-2026-civil-genai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-ho-2026-civil-genai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Dale E. Ho","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:00.619739+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf":"146f6e46236228a0d7184df4560374d178f7a98fae5f4e94ce644dca8572acc7"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Dale E. Ho’s January 8, 2026 civil individual practices for represented civil matters require any party using generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying review of source material, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-08","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-ho-2026-criminal-genai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-01-08","judge":"Dale E. Ho","keyProvisions":["Applies to criminal cases before Judge Ho.","Use of generative AI to generate any portion of a filing requires a separate declaration.","The declaration must certify source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-ho-2026-criminal-genai-declaration","recordId":"us-nysd-ho-2026-criminal-genai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-ho-2026-criminal-genai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Dale E. Ho","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Rules and Practices in Criminal Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:56.544184+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf":"7e50b9f0b4217a6555c26ab89a68d634b1d24ae2247586767426a568d9240f15"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Dale E. Ho’s revised January 8, 2026 criminal individual practices require any party using generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Individual Rules and Practices in Criminal Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-08","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-ho-2026-pro-se-genai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-01-08","judge":"Dale E. Ho","keyProvisions":["Applies to all civil cases involving pro se litigants before Judge Ho.","Generative AI use to generate any portion of a filing requires a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose AI use and certify source review and accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-ho-2026-pro-se-genai-declaration","recordId":"us-nysd-ho-2026-pro-se-genai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-ho-2026-pro-se-genai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Dale E. Ho","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:01.374801+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf":"9c4d9d5912f88081321e6ad21e1231bc59b19d26abcebb7b5e9ce63588208431"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Dale E. Ho’s January 8, 2026 civil pro se practices require any party in a civil pro se case who uses generative AI to generate part of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying source review and accuracy.","title":"Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-08","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-blumenfeld-2026-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2026-01-06","judge":"Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose the use of artificial intelligence.","The declaration must certify review of source material and accuracy of AI-generated content.","The certification must state compliance with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.","The order applies in civil cases assigned to Judge Blumenfeld."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-blumenfeld-2026-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-cacd-blumenfeld-2026-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-blumenfeld-2026-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:54.467627+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f":"d02ad87a830ec1b0e9976b8e274e3bfe3abfc4e2da201d116c51a4de25135067"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. requires parties using generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing AI use and certifying that the filer reviewed source material, verified the generated content, and complies with Rule 11.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-06","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Arizona","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-01-01","id":"us-az-judicial-conduct-rule-2-5-technology-competence","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Judicial competence under Rule 2.5 expressly includes the use of, and knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with, relevant technology","Effective 1 January 2026","Parallels the attorney technology-competence duty under Rule 42, ER 1.1, Comment 6"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-az-judicial-conduct-rule-2-5-technology-competence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-az-judicial-conduct-rule-2-5-technology-competence","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Arizona","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct 2025 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:57.044400+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf":"e159270cf0bd4e043ce65c0908562fba6965795d85972f4d81bfdb2ff11dbb52"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf","state":"Arizona","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Arizona added an explicit technology-competence duty to its Code of Judicial Conduct. Comment 1 to Rule 2.5 now requires judges to have the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary to perform judicial responsibilities, including use and knowledge of the benefits and risks of relevant technology.","title":"Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.5, Comment 1: judicial technology competence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Adopted 27 August 2025, effective 1 January 2026","date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf","version":"Comment 1 as amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cod-crews-2026-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge S. Kato Crews","keyProvisions":["Substantive motions, including Rules 12, 56, and 65 motions, responses, and replies, must contain an AI certification.","The certification must state use or non-use of generative AI.","If AI drafted language, a filer or another human must personally review it for accuracy.","The certification must state that all legal citations are actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.","The court will strike filings that omit the certification."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cod-crews-2026-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cod-crews-2026-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cod-crews-2026-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado — Judge S. Kato Crews","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Colorado — Standing Order for Civil Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:37.099846+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf":"f6963510eda672b92f4254099a4fc1765c165a94393e9f0cc2ce87b785b94ab5"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge S. Kato Crews’s revised District of Colorado civil standing order requires AI certifications for substantive motions and related briefing. Filers must disclose use or non-use of generative AI, certify human accuracy review when AI drafted language, and confirm citations are real or the filing may be stricken.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-fl-17th-circuit-ao-2026-03-gen","issuedDate":"2026-01-26","judge":"Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips","keyProvisions":["Circuit-level administrative order governing AI use in court filings (terms not yet verified)","Parallel orders exist in the 11th, 15th and 19th Judicial Circuits"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl17-court-2026-ai-filings-link","recordId":"us-fl-17th-circuit-ao-2026-03-gen"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl-17th-circuit-ao-2026-03-gen","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"superseded","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Broward County)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"AO 2026-03-GEN (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf"},{"label":"11th Judicial Circuit AI administrative order","primary":false,"url":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:24.311751+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf","https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf":"9b6da5e0f58b783ac0c0558000993acf0ceb5c6ce0b405398250d55fd4b2959d","https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html":"f778d4347c7720a0720ea7101d1826d29530049a378aff8c8c1f445a64904078"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"superseded","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Superseded. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit issued this administrative order in January 2026 on AI in court filings, with parallel orders in other circuits. The Supreme Court of Florida's 28 May 2026 amendment to Rule 2.515 was adopted, per its commentary, as a statewide replacement for those orders. The operative terms were never read.","title":"Florida 17th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2026-03-GEN: Use of AI in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial administrative order; the source gives a month only (issued January 2026), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf","version":"AO 2026-03-GEN"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court (Yellowstone County)","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2026-01-01","id":"us-mt-13th-district-local-rule-35-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies to attorneys and self-represented parties filing in the 13th Judicial District Court","The filer must identify the type of generative AI used","The filer must certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mt-13th-district-local-rule-35-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mt-13th-district-local-rule-35-ai","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court (Yellowstone County)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Yellowstone County District Court local rules (official PDF, unreachable from this environment)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf"},{"label":"Montana LawHelp, AI and Legal Resources","primary":false,"url":"https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:50.560381+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources","https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources":"08832f68c7b4d0996a4ba036024846f33433781fc5f5e68c7aebdad852aac887","https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf":"91c9aebeb035ac1cf5441043b5a42932aea5f9129a060a27416b7b5a4e648519"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf","state":"Montana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Local Rule 35 of Montana's Thirteenth Judicial District Court (Yellowstone County) requires an attorney or self-represented party who used generative AI in preparing any document filed with the court to identify the type of AI used and to certify that every citation to law or to the record has been verified as accurate.","title":"Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court Local Rule 35 — Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Local Rule 35 on generative AI; some practitioner summaries describe an earlier version effective 1 April 2025","date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf","version":"Local rules signed 1 January 2026"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-maslow-2026-genai-motion-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Aaron D. Maslow","keyProvisions":["Every motion submission must include a GenAI-use certification.","If GenAI was used, generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis must be reviewed for accuracy and approved.","The program, documents, and parts drafted by GenAI must be specified.","An attorney discovering hallucinations in an opponent’s submission must immediately inform the court."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-maslow-2026-genai-motion-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-maslow-2026-genai-motion-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-maslow-2026-genai-motion-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term — Judge Aaron D. Maslow","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term — Part 2 Rules: Artificial Intelligence Programs (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Aaron D. Maslow’s Kings County Part 2 rules require every motion submission to certify whether generative AI was used in drafting affidavits, affirmations, or memoranda of law. If used, the certification must identify the program, documents, and drafted parts after review of generated text, citations, quotations, and legal analysis.","title":"Part 2 Rules: Artificial Intelligence Programs","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-clarke-2026-gai-rule11-26g","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Jessica G. L. Clarke","keyProvisions":["Applies to attorneys using GAI in filings before Judge Clarke.","Also applies to serving or delivering discovery requests, responses, or objections.","The rule points attorneys to Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and ethical rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-clarke-2026-gai-rule11-26g","recordId":"us-nysd-clarke-2026-gai-rule11-26g"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-clarke-2026-gai-rule11-26g","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:59.610976+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf":"87d8764b767c9c78f1ce92607ad719b4d7540badf94d50e8297612f41dabc101"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke’s January 2026 civil individual practices state that any attorney using generative artificial intelligence in connection with a court filing or with discovery requests, responses, or objections must comply with Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and applicable ethical rules.","title":"Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Utah Judicial Council","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"practice-direction","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ut-judicial-council-2026-mediation-generative-ai","issuedDate":"2016-04-25","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The guide’s generative AI update says mediators may use AI-generated content to assist, not replace, professional judgment.","Mediators should not enter confidential, privileged, or personally identifiable information into open AI systems.","Use of AI systems and tools may be disclosed in the Agreement to Mediate.","Mediators using AI should have sufficient training about AI capabilities, limitations, and risks.","All AI-generated content should be critically reviewed for accuracy, tone, language, applicability, and assumptions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ut-judicial-council-2026-mediation-generative-ai","recordId":"us-ut-judicial-council-2026-mediation-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ut-judicial-council-2026-mediation-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Utah Judicial Council","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Utah Judicial Council — Utah Mediation Best Practice Guide: January 2026 - Generative AI Update (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:15.743316+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf":"4ead84c1e1dfebba4b6d267ba20e0e5639b9b7ebc03c776c74adbc596e56296c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf","state":"Utah","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Utah Mediation Best Practice Guide’s January 2026 generative AI update gives official court-connected guidance for mediators. It permits AI-generated content as assistance only, emphasizes confidentiality and secure systems, allows disclosure in mediation agreements, recommends AI competence, and calls for critical review of AI content.","title":"Utah Mediation Best Practice Guide: January 2026 - Generative AI Update","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2026-01-01","url":"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Clients must be notified and their consent obtained whenever calls are recorded by an AI-empowered system","Lawyers must independently verify the accuracy of AI-generated transcripts and summaries rather than relying on them unreviewed","Attorneys must safeguard AI-generated records and consider privilege, storage and discovery implications","Rule 1.1 competence requires understanding the technical features and limits of the AI tools used by the lawyer and by clients","Where clients use their own AI tools, retainers should disclaim reliance on unreviewed summaries and warn of confidentiality risks","Firms must train subordinates on ethical duties for AI in client communications"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6","publisherRequirements":["consent","confidentiality","verification","competence","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6","primary":false,"url":"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/":"92d03561c02b03ec4cc05cc505bc813ba7dcb94256f2eb97a2f3ab4cacb0fc37"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Formal Opinion 2025-6 addresses AI note-takers and transcription tools used in client communications. Clients must be notified and consent obtained whenever an AI-empowered system records their calls; lawyers must independently review AI transcripts and summaries, understand the tools' technical limits under Rule 1.1, and manage privilege and discovery risks in stored records.","title":"New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2025-12-22","url":"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Advisory Committee on Civil Rules / Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-frcp-court-2025-rule-11-ai-suggestion","issuedDate":"2025-12-16","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The suggestion proposes a Rule 11(a) certification for any document containing citations filed with a court.","The proposed certification covers content created with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence.","The signer would certify that they or a supervised individual reviewed AI-created content for existing and accurately cited authorities.","The signer would certify that cited authorities support the propositions for which they are cited.","The proposed text acknowledges corrective action, including sanctions, for hallucinated content submitted to the court."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"frcp-court-2025-rule-11-ai-suggestion","recordId":"us-frcp-court-2025-rule-11-ai-suggestion"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-frcp-court-2025-rule-11-ai-suggestion","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Advisory Committee on Civil Rules / Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Advisory Committee on Civil Rules / Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure — Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S: Proposed Rule 11(a) Generative AI Certification (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:14.735531+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf":"b31aa5eba12ee6b6f78965a0ade9733ee1e14fe4eaba6721badde8437b71e3bc"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf","state":null,"status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S asks the federal Civil Rules committee to consider amending Rule 11(a) so documents with citations and generative-AI-created content include a certification that supervised human review confirmed authorities exist, citations are accurate, and the authorities support the propositions cited.","title":"Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S: Proposed Rule 11(a) Generative AI Certification","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-12-16","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Hawaii, Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-hi-supreme-court-ai-committee-final-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Existing rules including HRCP Rule 11 are broad enough to provide adequate safeguards against AI abuse in state-court filings","The Court should consider adopting a disclosure rule mirroring D. Haw. General Order 23-1","Under the proposed rule an AI-assisted filing would be accompanied by a declaration confirming AI use and that all cited authorities have been verified","The committee adopted Hawaii State Judiciary Guardrails for the Acceptable Use of AI Tools and Platforms for judges and staff","Advisory only; no implementing Supreme Court order as of September 2026"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-hi-supreme-court-ai-committee-final-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-hi-supreme-court-ai-committee-final-report","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Hawaii, Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Hawaii State Judiciary (official site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:43.553550+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.state.hi.us/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/":"9563da570f629303f54f9450d371faded4eb7550be7761b494b3735fcb5bb6a6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/","state":"Hawaii","status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Hawaii's judiciary studied AI for eighteen months and concluded HRCP Rule 11 already covers AI abuse, while recommending the Supreme Court consider a federal-style AI disclosure declaration for state-court filings. The committee separately adopted internal guardrails for judiciary use of AI tools.","title":"Hawaii Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Final Report (SCMF-24-0000305)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Filed in SCMF-24-0000305","date":"2025-12-16","url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/","version":"Final Report"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Cabarrus County, North Carolina","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-07-23","id":"us-nc-cabarrus-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","issuedDate":"2024-07-23","judge":"Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Martin B. McGee","keyProvisions":["The revised order distinguishes AI that affects evidence from AI that affects advocacy only.","AI used solely to draft legal argument need not be disclosed when the lawyer reviews and adopts it as advocacy.","A party that generates, offers, materially alters, enhances, or analyzes evidence using AI must promptly disclose the nature and scope of use.","Users must protect confidentiality and privilege when employing AI tools.","Parties must use best efforts to verify authenticity, validity, and reliability where synthetic or AI-enhanced media may be involved."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nc-cabarrus-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","recordId":"us-nc-cabarrus-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nc-cabarrus-2025-ai-evidence-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"Superior Court of Cabarrus County, North Carolina — Judge Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Martin B. McGee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Cabarrus County, North Carolina — Revised Administrative Order Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence and Its Use in the Superior Court of Cabarrus County (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:25.192628+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf":"84689d3a3e56ebf0f2b38488d3fcfff1c7c0d7512b52626bc454bfc702ac08cb"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf","state":"North Carolina","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Cabarrus County Superior Court revised its generative AI administrative order on December 8, 2025. The order permits AI-assisted advocacy without disclosure when reviewed and adopted, but requires disclosure when AI generates, alters, enhances, or analyzes evidence and addresses deepfakes, confidentiality, validation, and sanctions.","title":"Revised Administrative Order Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence and Its Use in the Superior Court of Cabarrus County","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-12-08","url":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":"2025-12-01","id":"ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Judges must ensure AI use is consistent with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.","AI may assist with research and drafting but must not replace judicial reasoning.","Recommends ongoing training and periodic review of approved tools.","Reinforces the interim policy's ban on confidential data in public tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-03","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-report","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"New York State Unified Court System Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"NY Courts — AI Annual Report 2025 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The December 2025 annual report of the New York court system's Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts, containing principles-based ethical considerations and recommendations for judges and judicial staff using AI. It supplements the October 2025 interim policy, addressing impartiality, confidentiality, competence and the need for human judgment in every judicial decision.","title":"Ethical Considerations and Recommendations for the Use of AI by Judges and Judicial Staff (2025 Annual Report)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-12-01","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf","version":"2025 Annual Report"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Massachusetts State Courts","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Apply to court personnel only: judges, clerks, registers, recorders, employees, law clerks, interns and contractors","Permit generative AI for administrative tasks using only public information","Prohibit tools that retain or train on entered information","Do not govern attorney conduct and do not require attorney AI disclosure in filings","Described by Chief Justice Budd as a modest first step; subject to revision"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ma-sjc-2026-interim-genai-guidelines","recordId":"us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["prohibition","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","prohibition"],"scope":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"SJC Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI","primary":true,"url":"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:23.578608+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai":"7125091fd8b3237a746459db4ef06772115149c4fb930b68aa885e0e8269e53a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai","state":"Massachusetts","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Massachusetts' first judicial AI instrument. The SJC's interim guidelines let court personnel use generative AI for administrative work using only public information, bar tools that retain or train on entered information, and deliberately leave attorney conduct untouched pending possible later rules.","title":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Announced in the December 2025 State of the Judiciary address; the source gives a month only (announced December 2025), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2025-12-01","url":"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai","version":"Interim"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Denton County Probate Courts","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-12-01","id":"us-tx-denton-probate-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Denton County Probate Judges","keyProvisions":["All attorneys and self-represented litigants must sign and submit the attached AI certification form.","The certification requires human verification of any GenAI-created legal content.","The order applies to all pending and future Denton County probate cases."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-denton-probate-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-denton-probate-courts-2025-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-denton-probate-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"Denton County Probate Courts — Judge Denton County Probate Judges","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Denton County Probate Courts — Denton County Probate Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:09.310668+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719":"13fe6a5a94cf9b8f299491848ff4af40002fc8156390a344242ef1e1315659fc"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Denton County Probate Courts standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants to sign and submit an AI certification form in probate cases. The form includes an attestation that any information created or contributed by generative AI was independently verified through traditional legal sources by a human being.","title":"Denton County Probate Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-12-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2023-12-01","id":"us-txed-court-2023-local-rules-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Local Rule CV-11(g) warns that GenAI can produce factually or legally inaccurate content.","Litigants using GenAI must review and verify all content to satisfy Rule 11.","Attorney Rule AT-3(m) applies the same responsibility to lawyers."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-16","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-txed-court-2023-local-rules-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-16","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txed-court-2023-local-rules-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Texas — Local Rule CV-11(g) (official rule page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents"},{"label":"Eastern District of Texas — Local Rule AT-3(m) (official rule page)","primary":true,"url":"https://txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-3-standards-practice-be-observed-attorneys"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:20.488993+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-3-standards-practice-be-observed-attorneys","https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-3-standards-practice-be-observed-attorneys":"3c311661343b25d58a864276dc04d3042e9b924da879b2d4053fb1411f06ca77","https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents":"dda7bef34b6363a2857df2279350bea9db9eee186f1c31a2d65ae61724d0b9a5"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eastern District of Texas amended its local rules to address generative AI. Current CV-11(g) tells pro se litigants and represented parties that they remain bound by Rule 11 and must review and verify all content generated with AI, while AT-3(m) similarly reminds attorneys that AI cannot replace independent legal judgment.","title":"Eastern District of Texas Local Rules CV-11(g) and AT-3(m) on Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-12-01","url":"https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Virginia State Bar (approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":"2025-11-24","id":"us-va-legal-ethics-opinion-1901","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Value-based fees may reflect efficiency gains and the specialised skill of effectively incorporating AI, and remain reasonable under Rule 1.5(a)","A lawyer is not ethically required to reduce a flat or value-based fee solely because generative AI accelerated the work","The 'skill requisite to perform the legal service properly' may increase when using AI","Rule 1.5(b) may require additional explanation of why the lawyer's experience or technical skill contributes value even where time spent has fallen"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-va-legal-ethics-opinion-1901"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-va-legal-ethics-opinion-1901","publisherRequirements":["competence","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","other"],"scope":"Virginia State Bar (approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"LEO 1901 (Virginia State Bar official PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf"},{"label":"LEO 1901 (Supreme Court of Virginia copy)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf"},{"label":"VSB news release on proposed LEO 1901","primary":false,"url":"https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:22.579191+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx","https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf","https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx":"0f2d0e38edaffb3911268f1d7f5671ea8d393f833d416ce9e0a4e92a4c6c435f","https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf":"18ec6978daf6e5b76ac7ad6e4f25d2b7aeb7cf5fde49019b3a0843dd28b9dad4","https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf":"98e4314b85445ab78fc9bb47b43d593607fc783d8f08f95ffc54475464d9cdb9"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf","state":"Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"LEO 1901 addresses how Virginia lawyers may bill for work assisted by generative AI. It concludes that value-based and flat fees may reflect efficiency gains, the skill of effectively incorporating the technology, and the value of the output, and remain reasonable under Rule 1.5(a); a lawyer need not reduce a flat or value-based fee solely because AI accelerated the work.","title":"Legal Ethics Opinion 1901: Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia and effective immediately; VSB Council approved the proposed opinion on 12 June 2025","date":"2025-11-24","url":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf","version":"Approved"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-bankruptcy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2026-01-01","id":"us-casb-court-2025-generative-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2025-11-18","judge":"Chief Judge Christopher B. Latham","keyProvisions":["Pleadings, motions, or papers prepared in any aspect with generative AI must be accompanied by a signed attestation or certification.","The certification must identify the AI program used.","The filer must certify that the document was checked for factual and legal accuracy using reliable means.","The order applies to attorneys and self-represented litigants.","Bankruptcy Rule 9011 continues to apply to all filed documents."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"casb-court-2025-generative-ai-filings","recordId":"us-casb-court-2025-generative-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-casb-court-2025-generative-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California — Judge Christopher B. Latham","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of California — Bankruptcy General Order No. 210: Filings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:12.992823+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf":"4afa82d6e983c0e8825115666a025328b3e22a685ca1f9eb273e039b319f8638"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court’s General Order 210 applies to all filers starting January 1, 2026. Any pleading, motion, or paper prepared in any aspect with generative AI must include a signed certification identifying the AI program and confirming factual and legal accuracy review.","title":"Bankruptcy General Order No. 210: Filings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-11-18","url":"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-11-17","id":"us-ga-fulton-leftridge-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2025-11-17","judge":"Judge Leftridge","keyProvisions":["Counsel and pro se parties must disclose AI use in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court.","If AI was used, the filer must sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence before the signature block.","The certification identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","The filer further certifies that cited exhibits exist in the filer’s possession when filed."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-leftridge-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-leftridge-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-leftridge-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Leftridge","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Leftridge’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:19.182956+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf":"5ea4814746f2b7976b143d128cadc6301d2143b51a107ac983db8c53a70e074a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Leftridge of Fulton County Superior Court requires counsel and pro se parties to disclose AI use in documents submitted to the court. The November 17, 2025 standing order requires a tool-identifying certification under penalty of perjury, independent review, and a cited-exhibit possession certification.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Leftridge’s Division","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-11-17","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-torres-2025-genai-rule11-confirmation","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Analisa Torres","keyProvisions":["Applies to submissions prepared using generative AI such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard.","The submitting party and counsel must confirm accuracy and Rule 11 compliance.","Parties and counsel remain responsible for the accuracy of submissions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-torres-2025-genai-rule11-confirmation","recordId":"us-nysd-torres-2025-genai-rule11-confirmation"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-torres-2025-genai-rule11-confirmation","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Analisa Torres","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:54.716208+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf":"8b6f63d0a1e414cb0b90adf000fc3642e456c681ab476c146f44f9562b46e5a9"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Analisa Torres’s revised November 5, 2025 civil individual practices remind parties and counsel of Rule 11 duties and require a submitting party and counsel to confirm for themselves that any submission prepared with generative AI, and all source material within it, is accurate and Rule 11 compliant.","title":"Individual Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-11-05","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Montana Fourth Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties)","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI to prepare a filed pleading or document must disclose the use, the specific tool and how it was used","The party must certify they have checked the accuracy of any AI-drafted or AI-assisted portion, including factual and procedural background, citations and legal authority","A filing without the certification is presumed to certify that no part was prepared using generative AI","Responsibility for content rests with the attorney or pro se litigant under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the rules of professional conduct","Suspected violations may result in Rule 11 sanctions including dismissal of the party's case, document or pleading without prejudice"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Montana Fourth Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"MT 4th Judicial District Rules of Practice (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:00.540806+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf":"3c2b66367edc41b39cfac3842ec41c708a8e25fedeb13cd480adedafed0f9f27"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf","state":"Montana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Rule 3.G of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court's Rules of Practice requires any party who used generative AI in preparing a filed document to disclose that use, name the tool, explain how it was used, and certify that AI-assisted portions have been checked for accuracy. A filing without the certification certifies that no AI was used.","title":"Montana Fourth Judicial District Court Rules of Practice, Rule 3.G — Pleading Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Rule 3.G added to the district's Rules of Practice","date":"2025-10-31","url":"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf","version":"Rev. October 31, 2025"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Appellate Court of Maryland","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"judgment-guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-md-mezu-v-mezu","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The court reported the case to address the recurring problem of AI-drafted briefs containing incorrect, inaccurate or fictitious citations","The brief contained citations to multiple fictitious cases, misquoted passages, and citations that did not support the propositions cited","Failure to read AI-generated citations before filing is the operative breach","Based on the nature and severity of the conduct the court referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission","Delegation of research to a law clerk did not excuse the signing attorney"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-md-mezu-v-mezu"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-md-mezu-v-mezu","publisherRequirements":["verification","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"Appellate Court of Maryland","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Mezu v. Mezu (PDF, official)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf"},{"label":"MSBA announcement","primary":false,"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:49.368344+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf","https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf":"972474594db84d5f50843520eab8575929e3ea35edebfcada1bf3867204e5cbf","https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx":"b6d055d0a432e668080f7ceb6dd15f760360c3d5f99193ad0ed4e8ad446fb0f6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf","state":"Maryland","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Maryland's leading AI-hallucination decision. The Appellate Court of Maryland published Mezu as a warning to the bar, holding that failing to read AI-generated citations before filing can produce briefs citing multiple fictitious cases, and referred the signing attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Delegation to a law clerk was no defence.","title":"Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, 29 Oct 2025)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Reported opinion issued","date":"2025-10-29","url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf","version":"Reported opinion"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-broderick-2025-genai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2025-10-29","judge":"Vernon S. Broderick","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI in preparation of filed documents must disclose that AI was used.","If generative AI drafts filed documents, the party must certify independent review and verification.","The certification covers citations, quotations, legal authority, and Rule 11 obligations.","The rule excludes AI embedded in legal search engines such as Westlaw and LexisNexis."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-broderick-2025-genai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-nysd-broderick-2025-genai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-broderick-2025-genai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge Vernon S. Broderick","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:58.620782+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf":"fcb2ca637eebc4be7781c99a63579a75d933e69c39b72027ca854db4152a509f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s October 29, 2025 civil rules require any party, pro se or represented, using generative AI in preparing documents filed with the court to disclose that use. If AI drafts filed documents, the party must certify independent review and verification of citations, quotations, legal authority, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-29","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Utah Judicial Council","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-rules","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies to generative AI used for court-related work or on court-owned devices from 27 October 2025","Eight tools are expressly permitted: Adobe Firefly, ChatGPT, Claude.ai (Beta), Gemini Pro, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM, Webex Cisco AI Assistant and Westlaw","Any AI tool not expressly permitted in the interim rules is prohibited"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-rules"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-rules","publisherRequirements":["prohibition","permissive","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","prohibition"],"scope":"Utah Judicial Council","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Utah Judiciary HR, AI Information (official)","primary":false,"url":"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.678055+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information":"de9ebf2b6b5962ee0fe0df6357bdabed7d83f5630135c66a7b198d44e1b91b1f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information","state":"Utah","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"From 27 October 2025 the Utah Judicial Council operates an allow-list policy for generative AI in court-related work and on court-owned devices. Eight named tools are expressly permitted and any AI tool not expressly permitted is prohibited, giving Utah one of the most restrictive US state judiciary AI postures.","title":"Utah Judicial Council Interim Rules on the Use of Generative AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Interim rules implemented for court-related work and court-owned devices","date":"2025-10-27","url":"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information","version":"Interim rules"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guide","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Nonbinding companion to the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence; the Policy controls in the event of inconsistency","Explains how modern generative AI works and why that matters for confidentiality and security","Provides a framework to choose and document appropriate AI tools","Practice Resource Kit: sample client notices, firm AI policies, client consent form and terms-of-use checklist"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guide"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guide","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification","supervision","consent"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"ARDC Artificial Intelligence resources page","primary":false,"url":"https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence"},{"label":"Implementing Generative AI guide","primary":false,"url":"https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:57.622935+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1","https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1":"22054e18a0ca42307b79a1ddd6370903d19f055e49abe0b309470438497c5b3a","https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence":"53c6937fdb083aa5e85fd3e9f45e97ba6c095b0e6bfd8c833fd31faca09d4d21"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Illinois ARDC's practical companion to the Supreme Court's AI Policy. It is expressly nonbinding and subordinate to the Policy, and supplies an explanation of generative AI, a tool-selection and documentation framework, and a Practice Resource Kit with sample notices, firm policies, a client consent form and a terms-of-use checklist.","title":"ARDC: Implementing Generative AI for Illinois Attorneys","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2025-10-24","url":"https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysd-cronan-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"John P. Cronan","keyProvisions":["All litigants are responsible for verifying output produced by an AI tool.","An attorney signing an AI-assisted filing must attach a signed certification.","The certification must address review and verification of cited legal authorities and factual assertions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysd-cronan-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-nysd-cronan-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysd-cronan-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — Judge John P. Cronan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:57.576663+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf":"3d312b576a74d4ebb351ad9e77991e7620c7aa9e0ed3d86b8d9d6836986c0e1e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge John P. Cronan’s revised October 23, 2025 civil rules require an attorney signing an AI-assisted filing to attach a signed certification stating whether the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and, if so, describing steps taken to verify legal authorities and factual assertions generated by AI.","title":"Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-23","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge James L. Graham","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-10-21","id":"us-sd-ohio-graham-genai-standing-order","issuedDate":null,"judge":"James L. Graham","keyProvisions":["Any party, including a pro se litigant, who uses generative AI to help generate any portion of a filing must submit a declaration captioned 'Disclosure of the Use of Generative AI'.","The declaration must identify the AI-assisted content by page, section or paragraph and state the platform used.","The filer must certify having reviewed the relevant source material and verified that all submissions are accurate and comply with Rule 11(b).","The signer is responsible for the filing under Rule 11 whether or not AI was used; failure to comply with Rule 11(b) may lead to sanctions under Rule 11(c)."],"lastChecked":"2026-10-05","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-sd-ohio-graham-genai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-10-05","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-sd-ohio-graham-genai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge James L. Graham","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"S.D. Ohio — Judge Graham standing order on generative AI (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:00.047886+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf":"191b198c14afa8cf9559bdeef6f4fc5dc63f0dfb26dbfdc9afcb881ff46c645d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Standing order of 21 October 2025 by Judge James Graham (S.D. Ohio). A filing prepared with generative AI must carry a declaration naming the platform and identifying the AI-assisted content by page, section or paragraph, and certifying that the filer reviewed the sources and verified the submission's accuracy under Rule 11(b).","title":"Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge James L. Graham)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-21","url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the District of South Dakota","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-civil-ai-rule","issuedDate":"2025-10-20","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The public notice states that judges proposed new civil and criminal local rules on artificial intelligence.","Proposed Civil LR 7.2 makes attorneys and pro se parties responsible for personally reviewing and confirming filing accuracy.","The accuracy obligation covers quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, and drafting.","The responsibility applies regardless of whether artificial intelligence assisted in creating any portion of the filing.","Failure to comply may trigger sanctions in the presiding judge’s discretion."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"sdd-court-2025-proposed-civil-ai-rule","recordId":"us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-civil-ai-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-civil-ai-rule","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the District of South Dakota","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of South Dakota — Proposed Civil Local Rule 7.2 Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:09.013868+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf":"1d6adf73f6aec6bf6d09e6128b27fed8314ce9f503192dd0fedeab5fec1db447"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf","state":"South Dakota","status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of South Dakota public notice dated October 20, 2025, proposes Civil Local Rule 7.2 on artificial intelligence. The proposed rule requires attorneys and pro se parties to personally review and confirm the accuracy of legal filings, including citations and legal analysis, regardless of whether AI assisted in any portion of the filing.","title":"Proposed Civil Local Rule 7.2 Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-20","url":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"United States District Court for the District of South Dakota","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-criminal-ai-rule","issuedDate":"2025-10-20","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The public notice states that judges proposed new criminal and civil local rules on artificial intelligence.","Proposed Criminal LR 12.2 makes attorneys and pro se parties responsible for personally reviewing and confirming filing accuracy.","The proposed rule covers quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, and drafting.","The responsibility applies regardless of whether AI assisted in creating any portion of the filing.","Noncompliance may trigger sanctions in the presiding judge’s discretion."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"sdd-court-2025-proposed-criminal-ai-rule","recordId":"us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-criminal-ai-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-sdd-court-2025-proposed-criminal-ai-rule","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the District of South Dakota","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of South Dakota — Proposed Criminal Local Rule 12.2 Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:09.949464+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf":"40983b14cdf247f67e48869e8da58074b836e4e537748d22afbad4d56d2d7d9e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf","state":"South Dakota","status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of South Dakota public notice dated October 20, 2025, proposes Criminal Local Rule 12.2 on artificial intelligence. The proposed rule requires attorneys and pro se parties to personally review and confirm the accuracy of legal filings, including citations and legal analysis, regardless of whether AI assisted in creating the filing.","title":"Proposed Criminal Local Rule 12.2 Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-20","url":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Denton County District Courts","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-10-16","id":"us-tx-denton-district-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2025-10-16","judge":"Denton County District Judges","keyProvisions":["AI users must sign and submit the attached certification form before using AI-generated information.","The certification covers legal research, drafting, or analysis in court submissions or proceedings.","The attached form requires independent human verification through traditional legal sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-denton-district-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-denton-district-courts-2025-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-denton-district-courts-2025-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Denton County District Courts — Judge Denton County District Judges","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Denton County District Courts — Denton County District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:07.415029+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640":"c55f97a8cee8dad9b3f15e816451568f02d9af6df9a424898ba9d6404107bd49"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Denton County District Courts standing order applies to all pending and future district-court cases. It requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research, drafting, or analysis to submit a certification form stating that AI-created legal content was independently verified through traditional legal sources by a human being.","title":"Denton County District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-16","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"New York State Unified Court System","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2025-10-10","id":"ny-ucs-interim-ai-policy","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Only court-approved AI tools may be used for official work.","Judges and staff must complete training before using approved tools.","Confidential, sealed and personal information must not be entered into public AI tools.","All AI output must be reviewed for accuracy; responsibility stays with the user."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-03","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-ucs-2025-interim-ai-policy","recordId":"ny-ucs-interim-ai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-interim-ai-policy","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"New York State Unified Court System","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"NY Courts — Interim AI policy (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"An interim policy adopted by the New York State Unified Court System on 10 October 2025 for judges and non-judicial employees. It permits only approved generative AI tools, requires training, forbids entering confidential or non-public information into public tools, and requires that all output be reviewed and verified by the human user, who remains accountable for the result.","title":"Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-10","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","lawyers","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Advisory only, primarily directed at judges but referencing obligations of counsel","Lawyers should supervise AI output with active review and verification analogous to supervising a junior associate","Cites ABA Formal Opinion 512","Cautions against free consumer AI tools in favour of enterprise-grade systems with security protocols","Document not opened in this research run"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["verification","supervision","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"LASC Technology Commission Generative AI Guidelines (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:59.073231+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf":"aaccad0d0b5324eb8e142b928b94fc01c8ea1c3e2b7eeba2e2e56cba9982f35d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf","state":"Louisiana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Louisiana Supreme Court's Technology Commission issued advisory generative-AI guidelines in October 2025, chiefly for judges but addressing counsel. They call for active review and verification of AI output analogous to supervising a junior associate and warn against free consumer AI tools in favour of enterprise systems with security protocols.","title":"Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission: Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication; the source gives a month only (issued October 2025), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2025-10-01","url":"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the District of Minnesota","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mnd-court-2025-genai-faq","issuedDate":"2025-10-01","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The FAQ defines generative AI and describes common litigation uses such as legal research, drafting, revision, summarization, translation, and presentations.","The FAQ states that generative AI cannot check the accuracy of its own responses.","The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.","The FAQ advises users to avoid entering privileged, confidential, or sensitive information when data may be retained or accessed.","Users must always use generative AI consistently with ethical obligations, Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and protective orders."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"mnd-court-2025-genai-faq","recordId":"us-mnd-court-2025-genai-faq"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-mnd-court-2025-genai-faq","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the District of Minnesota","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Minnesota — GenAI FAQ (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:50.081262+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf":"272f7a5d806a05e6952e32b0119e73caf7b099734f873addba95fbdb0c1584f4"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf","state":"Minnesota","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of Minnesota GenAI FAQ, dated October 1, 2025, describes common generative AI litigation uses and limitations. It states that the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings, gives practice pointers on confidentiality and checking research, and reminds litigants that legal, procedural, ethical, and protective-order obligations still apply.","title":"GenAI FAQ","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-10-01","url":"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelines","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["ALJs are not permitted to use AI or generative AI to write orders or decisions, at any stage of drafting including outlines","ALJs are not permitted to use AI or generative AI for legal research in case proceedings","ALJs are not permitted to use AI or generative AI to analyse or summarise evidence or party submissions, partly because uploaded data including PII may be retained for training","AI-generated voice-to-text transcripts from licensed non-retaining software are permitted but may not be cited; citations must be to the recording and verified","ALJs may request AI disclosure statements from represented and self-represented parties at their discretion, with recommended certification language","Governing canons: Idaho Code of Conduct for ALJs 1.2, 2.2 and 2.5"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["prohibition","disclosure","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"OAH AI Guidelines (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:01.675492+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf":"2af192d6a81c2a490b5e5d604a32ada4bab0f1b86d8a1f37c32aa42952a4adfb"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf","state":"Idaho","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Idaho's administrative judiciary adopted a near-total ban on adjudicative AI use. ALJs may not use AI to draft orders or decisions, to research law, or to summarise evidence and party submissions; limited transcript use is allowed; and ALJs may require parties to certify that AI-drafted content was checked by a human.","title":"Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings: Guidelines for Administrative Law Judges Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Signed by Chief ALJ Bryan Nickels","date":"2025-09-24","url":"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ctd-court-2025-ai-assisted-research-notice","issuedDate":"2025-09-12","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Attorneys and pro se litigants should use great caution with AI-generated language.","Use of AI without verification implicates Rule 11.","The court has a no-tolerance policy for hallucinated legal propositions or severe misstatements of law."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ctd-court-2025-ai-assisted-research-notice","recordId":"us-ctd-court-2025-ai-assisted-research-notice"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ctd-court-2025-ai-assisted-research-notice","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Connecticut — Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:40.676571+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf":"d065257c57d3fd1a754d3bc51adf6b805c5c95c93f13b5e7e12c8949b959bc04"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf","state":"Connecticut","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of Connecticut’s September 12, 2025 notice tells attorneys and pro se litigants to exercise great caution when submitting AI-generated language in filings. It warns that unverified AI output implicates Rule 11 and that briefing, AI-assisted or not, hallucinating legal propositions or misstating law will often result in sanctions.","title":"Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-09-12","url":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2025-12-08","id":"us-pa-ujs-2025-genai-personnel-policy","issuedDate":"2025-09-09","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Personnel may only use or install GenAI tools approved by leadership.","Permitted uses include summaries, preliminary legal research, initial drafts, editing public documents, and public chatbots.","Personnel must understand technical capabilities and limitations and remain responsible for accuracy.","Personnel shall not share non-public information with non-secured AI systems."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"pa-ujs-2025-genai-personnel-policy","recordId":"us-pa-ujs-2025-genai-personnel-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-pa-ujs-2025-genai-personnel-policy","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification"],"scope":"Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania — Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:02.886554+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1":"94bbbd0341e3e64f2b26ed7cce366b6c56f8d3cd9a86d79e5335db72be75d036"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved an interim GenAI policy on September 9, 2025, effective December 8, 2025, for judicial officers and Unified Judicial System personnel. Personnel may use approved GenAI for listed work purposes, must understand tool limits, remain responsible for accuracy, and may not share non-public information with non-secured AI systems.","title":"Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-09-09","url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Judicial Council of California","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2025-09-01","id":"ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Courts permitting generative AI must adopt a written use policy by 15 December 2025.","Policies must prohibit entering confidential, personal or sealed information into public tools.","Staff must review AI output for accuracy and bias before use.","Public-facing written or visual content generated entirely by AI must be disclosed as such."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-21","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-21","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["confidentiality","verification","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Judicial Council of California","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"California Courts — Rule 10.430","primary":true,"url":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430"},{"label":"California Courts — Standard 10.80","primary":true,"url":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:56.580786+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80","https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80":"0a565ba21f2e77b666bac9c34f99ada71ac5fdf3275dbb7a171c27a76fc34683","https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430":"0396c51494e9ebe302321a09ee6560d45049552d8c4a94d0ac035e7e9f6d9d39"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Rule 10.430, effective 1 September 2025, requires California courts permitting generative AI to adopt use policies by 15 December 2025. Policies cover court staff and judicial officers' non-adjudicative tasks, addressing confidentiality, bias, verification and disclosure of entirely AI-generated public-facing content. Standard 10.80 separately provides advisory guidelines for judicial officers' adjudicative tasks; it is not a model policy.","title":"California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80: Generative AI use by courts","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-09-01","url":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"California Judicial Branch","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2025-09-01","id":"us-ca-judicial-branch-2025-standard-1080","issuedDate":"2025-09-01","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Judicial officers using generative AI in adjudicative tasks should not enter confidential, identifying, or nonpublic information into public systems.","Judicial officers should not use generative AI to unlawfully discriminate or disparately impact protected groups.","Judicial officers should take reasonable steps to verify accuracy and correct hallucinated output.","Judicial officers should remove biased, offensive, or harmful content from AI material used.","Judicial officers should consider disclosure if AI is used to create public content."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ca-judicial-branch-2025-standard-1080","recordId":"us-ca-judicial-branch-2025-standard-1080"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ca-judicial-branch-2025-standard-1080","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"California Judicial Branch","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"California Judicial Branch — California Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:58.041739+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80":"0a565ba21f2e77b666bac9c34f99ada71ac5fdf3275dbb7a171c27a76fc34683"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"California Standard 10.80 gives statewide guidance for judicial officers using generative AI within their adjudicative role. It addresses confidentiality, discriminatory use, accuracy verification, hallucination correction, biased or harmful content, and whether to disclose AI use when creating content provided to the public.","title":"California Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-09-01","url":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2023-12-18","id":"us-ohsd-newman-2025-civil-ai-ban","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Michael J. Newman","keyProvisions":["The standing civil order states that a new AI provision is effective August 27, 2025.","No attorney for a party or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court.","The ban does not apply to information gathered from legal search engines, internet search engines, or Microsoft Suite-type products.","Parties and counsel must immediately inform the court if they discover AI use in a document filed in their case or an opponent’s case.","The purpose is to prevent citation of false, misleading, or hallucinated cases and law."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ohsd-newman-2025-civil-ai-ban","recordId":"us-ohsd-newman-2025-civil-ai-ban"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ohsd-newman-2025-civil-ai-ban","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","prohibition"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio — Judge Michael J. Newman","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Ohio — Standing Order Governing Civil Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:03.738502+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf":"da31649eb4022109fef4fccd51ed97a15c85154d8bd8648c4a5c8085c2e824ed"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Newman’s Southern District of Ohio civil standing order adds an AI provision effective August 27, 2025. It bars attorneys and pro se parties from using AI to prepare any court filing, excludes legal search engines, internet search engines, and Microsoft Suite-type products, and requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered.","title":"Standing Order Governing Civil Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-27","url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-11-22","id":"us-ohsd-newman-2025-criminal-ai-ban","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Michael J. Newman","keyProvisions":["The standing criminal order states that a new AI provision is effective August 27, 2025.","No attorney for a party or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court.","The ban excludes information gathered from Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google, Bing, and Microsoft Suite-type products.","Parties and counsel must immediately inform the court if they discover AI use in any document filed in their case or an opponent’s case.","The provision aims to prevent citation of false, misleading, or hallucinated cases and law."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ohsd-newman-2025-criminal-ai-ban","recordId":"us-ohsd-newman-2025-criminal-ai-ban"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ohsd-newman-2025-criminal-ai-ban","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","prohibition"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio — Judge Michael J. Newman","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Ohio — Standing Order Governing Criminal Cases (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:01.385828+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf":"8543ac3dd100fb22efc8b759da823dbc18bf37c0e11d712b94375450c74a828b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Newman’s Southern District of Ohio criminal standing order adds an AI provision effective August 27, 2025. It prohibits attorneys and pro se parties from using AI to prepare filings, excludes legal search engines, internet search engines, and Microsoft Suite-type products, and requires immediate notice if AI use is discovered.","title":"Standing Order Governing Criminal Cases","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-27","url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ohsd-hopkins-2025-generative-ai-declaration","issuedDate":"2025-08-20","judge":"Jeffery P. Hopkins","keyProvisions":["The order identifies text-generation software powered by AI, including ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Harvey.ai.","Any party, including a self-represented litigant, who uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing must attach a separate declaration.","The declaration must disclose generative AI use and be captioned “Disclosure and Verification of Use of Generative AI.”","The declarant must certify review of relevant source material, accuracy of submissions, and Rule 11 compliance.","Signers remain responsible under Rule 11 whether or not generative AI was used."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ohsd-hopkins-2025-generative-ai-declaration","recordId":"us-ohsd-hopkins-2025-generative-ai-declaration"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ohsd-hopkins-2025-generative-ai-declaration","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio — Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Ohio — Standing Order Governing the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:40.225816+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf":"160037ac84e58555bbee41bd9ff0be3da31fb866c0207a0ee826d3cad281176a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","state":"Ohio","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Hopkins’s Southern District of Ohio standing order, issued August 20, 2025, requires any party or self-represented litigant using generative AI to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing the use and certifying source review, accuracy, and Rule 11 compliance.","title":"Standing Order Governing the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-20","url":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cand-thompson-2025-ai-civility","issuedDate":"2025-08-18","judge":"Judge Trina L. Thompson","keyProvisions":["ChatGPT and similar AI tools are not prohibited.","Counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of AI-assisted research.","Counsel bears ethical responsibility for all statements in filings.","Billing statements submitted for court review must indicate AI usage when applicable.","Failure to exercise due care may result in Rule 11 sanctions or discipline."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-thompson-2025-ai-civility","recordId":"us-cand-thompson-2025-ai-civility"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-thompson-2025-ai-civility","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Trina L. Thompson","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Standing Order on Civility and Professionalism (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:13.009815+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf":"ecf415a8224f4555c236c34c44ef3af66fdbadc137eca5977e39055fab6e357c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Trina L. Thompson’s Northern District of California civility standing order allows ChatGPT and similar AI tools but makes counsel responsible for verifying AI-assisted research and filings. It also requires billing statements submitted to the court to indicate AI usage when applicable.","title":"Standing Order on Civility and Professionalism","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-18","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Hays County Courts at Law","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2025-08-13","id":"us-tx-hays-county-courts-at-law-2025-local-rule-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2025-08-13","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI users must certify in writing before filing or presenting AI-generated information.","The certification covers all information created or contributed by GenAI.","Verification must be through traditional non-AI legal sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-hays-county-courts-at-law-2025-local-rule-ai-certification","recordId":"us-tx-hays-county-courts-at-law-2025-local-rule-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-hays-county-courts-at-law-2025-local-rule-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Hays County Courts at Law","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Hays County Courts at Law — Hays County Courts at Law Local Rule 1.07 Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504":"94d29baf11628422d27d56f369992f735a784dcff65f2e780f95afd2ee4cd011"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Hays County Courts at Law Local Rule 1.07 requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to certify in writing before filing or presenting AI-generated information. The certification covers language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis verified through traditional legal sources.","title":"Hays County Courts at Law Local Rule 1.07 Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-13","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","litigants","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["EOIR has no blanket prohibition on generative AI and no mandatory disclosure requirement in its proceedings.","Individual immigration judges, courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals may adopt standing orders or local operating procedures on AI use and disclosure.","Practitioners filing hallucinated or erroneous AI-generated content likely violate professional conduct obligations and may be disciplined under 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(c) for knowingly or recklessly offering false evidence.","Adjudicators who suspect improper AI use should refer the matter to EOIR's Attorney Discipline Program and, as appropriate, its Anti-Fraud Program.","Improper use of generative AI by an EOIR adjudicator may result in corrective or disciplinary action; unauthorised AI services on DOJ government-furnished equipment are prohibited.","Cites OCAHO's guidance established by adjudication in United States v. Wallcon, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1630 (2025), and OMB Memorandum M-25-21."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["permissive","verification","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"DOJ EOIR — PM 25-40 (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline="}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:47.764875+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline="],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=":"f682a86c0f4ba91913b326f1c0af1c566b22409b8099262d13e708174ab4adf8"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Signed by Acting Director Sirce E. Owen and effective 8 August 2025, this is the first Department of Justice component policy on generative AI binding practitioners. EOIR imposes neither a blanket prohibition nor mandatory disclosure, but treats hallucinated or erroneous AI content as a likely professional-conduct violation and directs adjudicators to refer suspected misuse for discipline.","title":"Policy Memorandum 25-40: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-08-08","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Louisiana Legislature","courtLevel":"legislation","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"statute","effectiveDate":"2025-08-01","id":"us-la-act-250-2025-ai-evidence","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Attorneys must exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it to the court","A party that knows or has reason to know its own exhibits have been falsified, including by AI generation or alteration, must disclose that fact","A party with reasonable suspicion that opposing exhibits are AI-generated or falsified must raise it at the pretrial conference or a pretrial admissibility hearing","Counsel offering false or AI-manipulated evidence without disclosure face contempt and potential disciplinary action where they knew or should have known through reasonable diligence","Applies to civil proceedings only; does not address AI-drafted briefs containing hallucinated citations","Enrolled text not opened in this research run and must be confirmed before publication"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-la-act-250-2025-ai-evidence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-la-act-250-2025-ai-evidence","publisherRequirements":["verification","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Louisiana Legislature","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Act 250 enrolled text (official)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.525580+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558":"83af55ad205e5c60486f8e99b18dce27c2a4171ef024257340bca23a18d6b6b0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558","state":"Louisiana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Louisiana enacted a civil-procedure duty to police AI-falsified evidence. Counsel must exercise reasonable diligence to verify exhibit authenticity, disclose known falsification of their own exhibits including AI generation or alteration, and raise reasonable suspicion about an opponent's exhibits at the pretrial stage, on pain of contempt and discipline.","title":"Louisiana Act No. 250 of 2025: verification and disclosure of AI-generated or falsified evidence (La. C.C.P. art. 371)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260812134358/https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Signed 11 June 2025, effective 1 August 2025","date":"2025-08-01","url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558","version":"Act No. 250 (2025 Regular Session, HB 178)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Federal Judiciary / Judicial Conference of the United States","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Judiciary users must review and independently verify all AI-generated content and remain accountable for AI-assisted work.","Cautions against delegating core judicial functions to AI, including decision making and case adjudication.","Advises extreme caution when using AI on novel legal questions.","Courts should define the tasks for which locally approved AI tools may be used.","Users should consider whether AI use should be disclosed, to whom, and consistently with confidentiality and ethical duties."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"usjudiciary-court-2025-interim-ai-guidance","recordId":"us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance","publisherRequirements":["verification","disclosure","confidentiality","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure","other","verification"],"scope":"Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Artificial Intelligence Task Force","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025"},{"label":"Administrative Office letter to Senator Grassley on judiciary use of AI (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.110630+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf","https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf":null,"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025":"d4e142c432627f3a7d7d1265c6a1cfdf842476ffeb6957d2ff9bd05e0916eee3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Interim guidance developed by the Administrative Office's AI Task Force and distributed across the United States federal judiciary on 31 July 2025. It permits experimentation with AI while directing users to independently verify all AI-generated output, cautioning against delegating core judicial functions, and asking each court to define locally approved tools and tasks. The text itself is not published.","title":"Interim guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in the federal judiciary","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"First judiciary-wide AI guidance; temporary pending a permanent AI governance framework called for by the September 2025 Strategic Plan.","date":"2025-07-31","url":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025","version":"Interim guidance, distributed judiciary-wide"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States Court of International Trade","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cit-kelly-2025-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2025-07-24","judge":"Claire R. Kelly","keyProvisions":["Applies to any submission in a case assigned to Judge Kelly containing text drafted with generative AI based on natural language prompts.","Identifies ChatGPT and Google Bard as nonexclusive examples of covered tools.","Requires a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portion of text drafted.","Requires a certification that no confidential or business proprietary information was disclosed to unauthorized parties.","Permits parties to file motions seeking relief based on the disclosed facts."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cit-kelly-2025-artificial-intelligence","recordId":"us-cit-kelly-2025-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cit-kelly-2025-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"United States Court of International Trade — Judge Claire R. Kelly","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Court of International Trade — Order on Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:35.725657+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf":"b1b821d642107106c1a2b012076800ebf479fa1330713fb618ec1f12fdda81f2"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Claire R. Kelly of the Court of International Trade requires filings in her cases that contain text drafted with generative AI to include a disclosure identifying the program and portions drafted, plus a certification that confidential or business proprietary information was not disclosed to unauthorized parties.","title":"Order on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-24","url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States Court of International Trade","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cit-restani-2025-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2025-07-24","judge":"Jane A. Restani","keyProvisions":["Applies to submissions in cases assigned to Judge Restani containing text drafted with generative AI based on natural language prompts.","Names ChatGPT and Google Bard as examples without limiting the order to those tools.","Requires a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portion of text drafted.","Requires certification that use of the program did not disclose confidential or business proprietary information to an unauthorized party.","Provides that any party may file a motion seeking relief after the notice is filed."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cit-restani-2025-artificial-intelligence","recordId":"us-cit-restani-2025-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cit-restani-2025-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"United States Court of International Trade — Judge Jane A. Restani","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Court of International Trade — Order on Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:32.586797+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf":"f16519ccb5ebd3c40ac219488573662e074fb686dc8edc3081a9ad5f6ac8a86d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Jane A. Restani of the Court of International Trade requires AI-drafted text in submissions in her cases to be disclosed by program and text portion, and requires certification that use of the generative AI program did not disclose confidential or business proprietary information to unauthorized parties.","title":"Order on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-24","url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-07-24","id":"us-ga-fulton-benton-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2025-07-24","judge":"Judge Alice Benton","keyProvisions":["The order governs AI tools in briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions in criminal and civil dockets.","Attorneys and pro se litigants who use AI to prepare, draft, or review a filing must disclose that use.","The certification must identify the AI tool and certify independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","The filer must certify that every citation to law, case, statute, or the record exists and is accurate."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-benton-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-benton-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-benton-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Alice Benton","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Benton’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:18.098039+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf":"31e0698ece97985a87bf13daeb2ec66ac8e43a40692dd47701598a949afa8d6a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Benton of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 24, 2025 standing order requires identifying the AI tool and certifying independent review plus verification of every citation to law, case, statute, or the record.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Benton’s Division","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-24","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-07-16","id":"us-cand-kang-2025-ai-filings-evidence","issuedDate":"2025-07-16","judge":"Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang","keyProvisions":["AI-created or AI-drafted text in briefs, pleadings, or other documents must be identified in a caption, table, or notice.","Counsel must maintain records sufficient to identify AI-created portions if requested by the court.","Parties may not file hallucinated citations or uncorroborated assertions of law or fact.","AI-generated evidentiary material must be disclosed or produced in discovery and identified by notice.","Counsel and parties must keep records sufficient to corroborate compliance with confidentiality obligations."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cand-kang-2025-ai-filings-evidence","recordId":"us-cand-kang-2025-ai-filings-evidence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cand-kang-2025-ai-filings-evidence","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification","record-keeping"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","record-keeping","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Judge Peter H. Kang","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of California — Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:32.239477+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf":"480f516550f98fdcc779ad88561aec44c910e58153573cb9ea1067903a528842"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang’s civil standing order gives detailed conditions for AI use in filings, evidence, and confidentiality. It requires identification of AI-drafted text, prompt or portion records on request, discovery disclosure for AI-generated evidence, and verification against hallucinated citations or facts.","title":"Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-16","url":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-07-11","id":"us-ga-fulton-schwall-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2025-07-11","judge":"Judge Craig L. Schwall Sr.","keyProvisions":["The order applies to briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions in criminal and civil dockets.","AI use to prepare, draft, or review a filing must be disclosed in the document.","The required certification identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy and good law.","Every citation to law, case, statute, or the record must be verified as accurate and as existing for the cited proposition."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-fulton-schwall-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-ga-fulton-schwall-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-fulton-schwall-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Craig L. Schwall Sr.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Schwall’s Division (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:44.016694+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf":"99a276b2c7bbba8a0d8033a0d78b6b99619d88b55493e85b2724377ce9d7cf39"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Schwall of Fulton County Superior Court requires attorneys and pro se litigants to disclose AI use in criminal and civil filings. The July 11, 2025 standing order requires an AI-tool disclosure, independent-review certification, and verification that every legal, statutory, and record citation exists as cited.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Judge Schwall’s Division","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-11","url":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States Court of International Trade","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cit-choe-groves-2025-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2025-07-03","judge":"Jennifer Choe-Groves","keyProvisions":["Applies to submissions in cases assigned to Judge Choe-Groves containing text drafted with the assistance of generative AI.","Requires a disclosure notice identifying the program used, the manner in which it was used, and the specific text portions drafted.","Requires certification that counsel or the party reviewed the included text and legal research for factual and legal accuracy.","Requires certification that use of the AI program did not cause unauthorized disclosure of confidential or business proprietary information.","Allows any party to move for appropriate relief after such a notice is filed."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cit-choe-groves-2025-artificial-intelligence","recordId":"us-cit-choe-groves-2025-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cit-choe-groves-2025-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"United States Court of International Trade — Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Court of International Trade — Standing Order on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:31.626249+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf":"7a9f98abad2a8ddb7815b2c80bf1582775b7ef525b48921b729beacd6e6150d9"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the Court of International Trade requires counsel and pro se litigants filing generative-AI-drafted text in her cases to disclose the program, manner of use, and portions drafted, certify human review for factual and legal accuracy, and certify no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.","title":"Standing Order on the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-03","url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff","lawyers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Judicial Council of Georgia, Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ga-judicial-council-ai-committee-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Committee established August 2024, chaired by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, with membership from state court classes and judicial partner agencies","Charge: assess risks and benefits of generative AI in the courts and recommend measures to maintain public trust and confidence","Principal focus on court rules and procedures","A parallel State Bar of Georgia committee reviews the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct","Report submitted 3 July 2025; implementing order not verified"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ga-judicial-council-ai-committee-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-judicial-council-ai-committee-report","publisherRequirements":["risk-classification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"Judicial Council of Georgia, Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Judicial Council AI Committee submits report (official announcement)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/"},{"label":"Committee page","primary":true,"url":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.131862+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/","https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/":"5a5951634639fe443c3c9b4bf91e971a9f2b190080672e24952ba4204ea3e993","https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Georgia's judicial branch response to generative AI. The Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts, established August 2024 under Justice Andrew Pinson, submitted its report on 3 July 2025 focused on court rules and procedures; no implementing Supreme Court order has been verified as of September 2026.","title":"Judicial Council of Georgia Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: Report","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Report submitted to the Judicial Council","date":"2025-07-03","url":"https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/","version":"Committee report"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cacd-olguin-2025-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Fernando M. Olguin","keyProvisions":["If a party or attorney uses an AI tool in preparing a filing, submitting the filing signifies certification.","The responsible individual certifies that they reviewed all source material.","The responsible individual certifies that they verified the accuracy of AI content.","The provision cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cacd-olguin-2025-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cacd-olguin-2025-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cacd-olguin-2025-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Judge Fernando M. Olguin","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Central District of California — Initial Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:53.432842+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138":"209d9cc0d3354b378e7d034297d2f5cfaf5a378c7b6543e5b37a4c80d72dc9ec"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138","state":"California","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Fernando M. Olguin’s Central District of California initial standing order treats submission of a filing prepared with an AI tool as a certification by the responsible person. The certification covers review of all source material and verification of the accuracy of AI content under Rule 11.","title":"Initial Standing Order","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-07-01","url":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-kazen-2025-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","issuedDate":"2025-06-23","judge":"Judge John A. Kazen","keyProvisions":["Criminal procedures require factual and legal review of AI-assisted filings before submission.","The procedures state counsel and self-represented litigants remain fully accountable.","The section incorporates SDTX General Order 2025-04."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-kazen-2025-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","recordId":"us-txsd-kazen-2025-criminal-generative-ai-procedures"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-kazen-2025-criminal-generative-ai-procedures","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge John A. Kazen","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — Judge John A. Kazen Court Procedures in Criminal Cases Section 7 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:11.966276+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf":"c128b88666559d4ea24889d0b9d4d0a0b95199e06dbeaadb116793ddaadae0a8"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kazen’s criminal procedures add a case-specific AI section for criminal matters. Attorneys and self-represented litigants must thoroughly review any filing prepared with generative AI for factual and legal accuracy, remain accountable for submitted content, and may face sanctions for inaccurate or frivolous AI-generated content.","title":"Judge John A. Kazen Court Procedures in Criminal Cases Section 7","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-06-23","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms","providers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"State Bar of Michigan, Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mi-age-of-ai-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Living document, not a binding ethics opinion","Reaffirms MRPC 1.1 as the operative competence standard for AI use","Addresses AI's impact on unauthorised practice of law under MCL 600.916","Six institutional recommendations covering member education, staff development and standing committee oversight"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mi-age-of-ai-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mi-age-of-ai-report","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"State Bar of Michigan, Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf"},{"label":"SBM announcement","primary":false,"url":"https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/State-Bar-of-Michigan-releases-comprehensive-report-on-AI-and-the-legal-profession"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.829922+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/State-Bar-of-Michigan-releases-comprehensive-report-on-AI-and-the-legal-profession","https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/State-Bar-of-Michigan-releases-comprehensive-report-on-AI-and-the-legal-profession":"a00a6df114511aa4d030dcbf7a23ef26d9e3e1bf7c28970e2f4a4f5bc3e49c79","https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf":"8ce944f493d1a1ad21175caf4ecaec8f6372f0c3701dd64aae213467d10208ef"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf","state":"Michigan","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Michigan's bar-level strategic report on AI, released 11 June 2025. It reaffirms MRPC 1.1 competence as the operative standard, examines AI and the unauthorised practice of law under MCL 600.916, and makes six institutional recommendations on member education, staff development and standing committee oversight. It is a living document, not an ethics opinion.","title":"State Bar of Michigan AI Workgroup: Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Released by the Board of Commissioners AI Workgroup","date":"2025-06-11","url":"https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","court-staff","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Arkansas Supreme Court","courtLevel":"state-supreme","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ar-admin-order-25-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2025-06-05","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Intentional or inadvertent disclosure of confidential or sealed client or case information to a generative AI model may violate Administrative Order No. 19, the ARPC and the Code of Judicial Conduct","Court personnel with internal CourtConnect access may not intentionally expose court system data to any external generative AI tool","An exemption exists for court-approved research and analysis projects with prior approval of the Supreme Court Committee on Automation","The order does not require pre-filing disclosure or certification of AI use"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ark-supreme-court-2025-admin-order-25-ai","recordId":"us-ar-admin-order-25-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ar-admin-order-25-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["confidentiality","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","prohibition"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"In re Creation of Administrative Order No. 25 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf"},{"label":"Arkansas Advocate report","primary":false,"url":"https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/06/09/arkansas-supreme-court-releases-proposed-rule-for-artificial-intelligence/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:54.908103+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf","https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/06/09/arkansas-supreme-court-releases-proposed-rule-for-artificial-intelligence/"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf":"92f6d31bfa59e507823cf12ead144752dfdbfab5743e641006004fc9cdebfe5e","https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/06/09/arkansas-supreme-court-releases-proposed-rule-for-artificial-intelligence/":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf","state":"Arkansas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Arkansas's court-side AI order. It warns that disclosing confidential or sealed client or case information to a generative AI model may breach Administrative Order No. 19, the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and bars court personnel from exposing CourtConnect data to external generative AI tools without Automation Committee approval.","title":"Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Creation of Administrative Order No. 25","date":"2025-06-05","url":"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf","version":"2025 Ark. 117"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ar-rpc-ai-amendments-2025","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Amended Rule 5.3 (Nonlawyer Assistance) makes the supervising attorney personally and fully responsible for AI-generated work product","The amended Preamble confirms generative AI is not prohibited but its use remains fully subject to all existing rules","Adopted in place of a numbered Arkansas Bar Association ethics opinion"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ar-rpc-ai-amendments-2025"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ar-rpc-ai-amendments-2025","publisherRequirements":["supervision","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Arkansas Judiciary (official site)","primary":true,"url":"https://arcourts.gov/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:53.843532+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://arcourts.gov/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://arcourts.gov/":"0b884be01f8a4b4cc0ce062f2829ecabdd21d4554442f07271f83cc2533cfe7c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/","state":"Arkansas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Arkansas wrote AI supervision into its conduct rules rather than issuing a bar opinion. Amended Rule 5.3 makes the supervising attorney fully responsible for AI-generated work product, and the amended Preamble confirms AI use remains subject to all existing rules.","title":"In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct (AI amendments), 2025 Ark. 115","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Amendments to Rule 5.3 and the Preamble","date":"2025-06-05","url":"https://arcourts.gov/","version":"2025 Ark. 115"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-05-23","id":"us-alnd-axon-2025-ai-disclosure","issuedDate":"2025-05-23","judge":"Judge Annemarie Carney Axon","keyProvisions":["Counsel and pro se parties must disclose AI use in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court.","An attorney or pro se party using AI must sign and file a disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence.","The disclosure identifies the AI tool and certifies independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law under Rule 11.","The court does not recognize mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints as good-faith excuses."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"alnd-axon-2025-ai-disclosure","recordId":"us-alnd-axon-2025-ai-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-alnd-axon-2025-ai-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama — Judge Annemarie Carney Axon","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Alabama — Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:25.403789+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf":"dd7cff3019436d7e4ea230863bff89c587bb644c4087595f3c7d88dfaa0761a0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf","state":"Alabama","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Axon of the Northern District of Alabama requires AI disclosure in civil submissions. The May 23, 2025 initial order requires attorneys and pro se parties who use AI to prepare filings to identify the AI tool and certify independent review for accuracy, legitimacy, and good law.","title":"Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings: Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-23","url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-05-13","id":"us-wyd-court-2025-ai-filings-general-order","issuedDate":"2025-05-13","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The general order applies to litigants appearing in the District of Wyoming, represented or pro se.","The court recognizes AI can be beneficial to attorneys, clients, and unrepresented litigants.","The order reminds filers that Rule 11 requires legal contentions to be warranted by existing law.","AI-generated arguments and citations not warranted by existing law are prohibited.","The order specifically identifies hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases as subject to sanction."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"wyd-court-2025-ai-filings-general-order","recordId":"us-wyd-court-2025-ai-filings-general-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-wyd-court-2025-ai-filings-general-order","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Wyoming — General Order No. 25-01 Concerning the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Preparation of Filings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:19.006040+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf":"e1c4a0a847fe1e8e144200cf26059f8146c8b0744a672cdcb81f2869f955ed4c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","state":"Wyoming","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The District of Wyoming’s General Order 25-01 addresses artificial intelligence in the preparation of filings. It reminds represented and pro se litigants of Rule 11, recognizes potential benefits of AI, but strictly prohibits AI-generated arguments or citations not warranted by existing law, including hallucinated authorities.","title":"General Order No. 25-01 Concerning the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Preparation of Filings","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-13","url":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nmd-gonzales-2025-ai-bulletin","issuedDate":"2025-05-09","judge":"Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales","keyProvisions":["The bulletin reminds all litigants of Rule 11 obligations for filed papers.","It notes examples of AI-generated arguments and non-existent cases.","It says AI-generated unsupported arguments and citations are prohibited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nmd-gonzales-2025-ai-bulletin","recordId":"us-nmd-gonzales-2025-ai-bulletin"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nmd-gonzales-2025-ai-bulletin","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico — Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of New Mexico — District of New Mexico Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:53.151828+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf":"9e16c9e6551847ab16d03850548cfc8a3dd51ef3d3b58ac47b04d2bae87dd4ab"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf","state":"New Mexico","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Chief Judge Gonzales’s District of New Mexico bulletin reminds counsel and unrepresented parties that Rule 11 requires legal contentions in signed papers to be warranted. The bulletin reports apparent AI-generated arguments and citations to nonexistent cases and warns that such practices are prohibited and may be sanctioned.","title":"District of New Mexico Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-09","url":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-court-2025-general-order-generative-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2025-05-07","judge":"Chief Judge Randy Crane","keyProvisions":["District-wide order cautions filers to check AI-assisted filings for factual and legal accuracy.","The order reminds filers that Rule 11 responsibility remains with the signer.","The order does not create a separate disclosure or certification form."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-court-2025-general-order-generative-ai-filings","recordId":"us-txsd-court-2025-general-order-generative-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-court-2025-general-order-generative-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge Randy Crane","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — General Order 2025-04 on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:14.572950+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf":"3c7f7e80fe35c4987dd849a2352002532b4c0c077eca42372f18fe729a317e11"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Southern District of Texas General Order 2025-04 is a district-wide caution about generative AI in court filings. It warns lawyers and pro se parties that AI content can be inaccurate, should not replace lawyer judgment, and will not excuse Rule 11 or ethics violations, but it does not impose a separate AI disclosure certificate.","title":"General Order 2025-04 on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-07","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of Virginia","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2024-06-06","id":"us-va-supreme-court-2025-generative-ai-rules","issuedDate":"2024-06-06","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The rules apply to individuals subject to the Chief Justice’s administrative authority over Virginia’s judicial system.","Generative AI use is authorized only to support and enhance judicial-system functions while protecting confidentiality and security.","Users must complete compliance training and certify that they have read and will comply with the AI Rules before using generative AI.","DeepSeek applications are prohibited on court-issued devices and personal devices used for official business or connected to judicial networks.","Users may not upload non-public, proprietary, confidential, personally identifying, or case-related information into non-vetted AI tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"va-supreme-court-2025-generative-ai-rules","recordId":"us-va-supreme-court-2025-generative-ai-rules"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-va-supreme-court-2025-generative-ai-rules","publisherRequirements":["confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Virginia","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court of Virginia — Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf"},{"label":"Archived copy (Wayback Machine)","primary":false,"url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20250601134930/https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.229595+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf":"539b21e6b358aeceb5496aa978a5bfe5a3b0a58400b250584f7c46091e34cd02"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf","state":"Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Supreme Court of Virginia’s Rules for Generative AI Use govern judicial-system users, effective June 6, 2024 and amended May 7, 2025. The rules authorize only controlled generative AI use, require training certification, prohibit DeepSeek, restrict confidential and case-related inputs, and preserve human decision-making.","title":"Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20250601134930/https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-07","url":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Maryland State Bar Association, AI and Legal Technology Task Force","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-md-msba-ai-task-force-advisory","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Non-binding overview of ethical considerations for attorney use of generative AI under the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct","Not a numbered ethics opinion; Maryland has no AGC or Supreme Court AI ethics opinion","Full text distributed through the MSBA store and not verified in this run"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-md-msba-ai-task-force-advisory"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-md-msba-ai-task-force-advisory","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","supervision"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Maryland State Bar Association, AI and Legal Technology Task Force","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"MSBA store listing","primary":false,"url":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:52.519936+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25":"065a66f54a76a451cd4e120ba27692fc5282c6da56ea5552b0969dccd71cd57c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","state":"Maryland","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Maryland's only bar-level AI guidance is an MSBA task force advisory from May 2025. It surveys competence, confidentiality, verification and supervision under the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct but is not a numbered ethics opinion and was not readable in this research run.","title":"MSBA AI and Legal Technology Task Force: Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Published by the MSBA AI and Legal Technology Task Force; the source gives a month only (published May 2025), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2025-05-01","url":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txsd-marmolejo-2025-civil-generative-ai-procedures","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo","keyProvisions":["Civil procedures require review of AI-assisted filings for factual and legal accuracy.","The procedures warn that Rule 11 responsibility remains with the signer.","The section incorporates SDTX General Order 2025-04."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txsd-marmolejo-2025-civil-generative-ai-procedures","recordId":"us-txsd-marmolejo-2025-civil-generative-ai-procedures"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txsd-marmolejo-2025-civil-generative-ai-procedures","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of Texas — Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo Civil Court Procedures Section 8 (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:13.014552+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf":"39e82f282dfeb83b84f13a7d0446dfdc0469c9b3f9e66ffc7a3582c7c18db1bd"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Marmolejo’s civil procedures include a generative-AI section requiring attorneys and self-represented litigants to review AI-assisted filings for factual and legal accuracy. The section emphasizes continuing Rule 11 and ethics responsibility and adopts the Southern District’s General Order 2025-04 by reference.","title":"Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo Civil Court Procedures Section 8","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-05-01","url":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges","lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of Guam","courtLevel":"territorial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-05-01","id":"us-guam-supreme-court-2025-ai-policy","issuedDate":"2025-04-30","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The Supreme Court adopts the Judiciary of Guam Policy on Artificial Intelligence effective May 1, 2025.","The policy applies to judiciary employees, attorneys, judges, court personnel, and litigants.","Disclosure of AI usage should not be mandated in court pleadings.","All users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submission in judicial proceedings.","AI applications must not compromise confidential communications, personal identifying information, health information, public safety data, or security-related information.","Judges remain ultimately responsible for their decisions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"guam-supreme-court-2025-ai-policy","recordId":"us-guam-supreme-court-2025-ai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-guam-supreme-court-2025-ai-policy","publisherRequirements":["certification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Guam","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court of Guam — Administrative Order No. ADM25-001 Adopting the Judiciary of Guam Policy on Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:47.286055+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf":"a2049d5d573ada7a9d41b8f81ada5a42ce6c4063a99f61ed4c5b4a70b2c20694"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf","state":"Guam","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Supreme Court of Guam’s administrative order adopts a judiciary-wide AI policy effective May 1, 2025. The policy covers attorneys, litigants, judges, and court personnel; says AI use should not be discouraged; does not mandate pleading disclosure; requires thorough review of AI-generated submissions; and protects sensitive information.","title":"Administrative Order No. ADM25-001 Adopting the Judiciary of Guam Policy on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-04-30","url":"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["A lawyer may use generative AI but must first reasonably understand how it works, its limits and whether it safeguards client confidences","All AI output must be carefully reviewed before use or submission (ARPC 1.1, 3.3)","Before inputting client confidences the lawyer must review data-retention, data-sharing and self-learning policies; if unprotected, inputs must be anonymised","AI costs may be billed only if the client's liability and the basis of computation are disclosed within a reasonable time after the representation begins (ARPC 1.5)","Time saved by AI may not be billed as if worked manually; fees must remain reasonable and proportionate","Lawyers must comply where a court requires disclosure of generative AI use","Supervising lawyers must understand the technology well enough to oversee its use (ARPC 5.1, 5.3)"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Opinion 2025-1 (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf"},{"label":"Adopted opinions index","primary":false,"url":"https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:43.787482+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/","https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/":"b75f5f56318afa86c4fc67c245dbbb31616d696e4a374365f8a2398bd5a69fd2","https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf":"5916a6079682b3d86fe5bf649cb01e2e3b0b0f1cb8905c38b4c0dcdb668c3f96"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf","state":"Alaska","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Alaska's generative-AI ethics opinion. Lawyers may use generative AI but must understand it, review all output, protect client confidences through closed systems or anonymisation, disclose the basis of any AI charge within a reasonable time of engagement, avoid billing for time not worked, and supervise staff using AI.","title":"Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Approved by the Ethics Committee 3 April 2025; adopted by the Board of Governors 23 April 2025","date":"2025-04-23","url":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf","version":"2025-1"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-04-08","id":"us-fl17-court-2025-civil-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2025-04-08","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The civil case management exhibit says attorneys may use AI only to the extent they can guarantee ethical compliance.","Filings or submissions containing AI-generated content must disclose artificial intelligence on the face of the document.","The filing must include a certification that the attorney or pro se party personally reviewed and verified accuracy.","Failure to include the certification or comply with verification requirements is grounds for sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"fl17-court-2025-civil-ai-certification","recordId":"us-fl17-court-2025-civil-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl17-court-2025-civil-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida — Administrative Order 2024-26-Civ (Amendment 2) with Civil Case Management Exhibits (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf"},{"label":"Archived copy (Wayback Machine)","primary":false,"url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20250618121530/https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:29.310450+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf":"70b60a589252f16746b9b0ebd27261ae683a2e0616df886cdffbadf09598f377"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf","state":"Florida","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida included AI certification and verification requirements in its amended civil case management order. The April 8, 2025 order requires attorneys and pro se parties to disclose AI-generated content on the face of civil filings and certify personal review and accuracy verification.","title":"Administrative Order 2024-26-Civ (Amendment 2) with Civil Case Management Exhibits","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20250618121530/https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-04-08","url":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2025-03-25","id":"us-sc-supreme-court-2025-genai-policy","issuedDate":"2025-03-25","judge":"Chief Justice John W. Kittredge","keyProvisions":["The interim policy applies to all judicial officers and employees of the South Carolina Judicial Branch.","Judicial officers and employees may only use generative AI tools approved by the Supreme Court or Court Administration.","Generative AI may not be used to draft memoranda, orders, opinions, or other documents without direct human oversight and approval.","Confidential court records or privileged information may not be processed with AI unless expressly authorized and policy-compliant.","The policy reminds lawyers and litigants that it does not specifically address their AI use in matters."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"sc-supreme-court-2025-genai-policy","recordId":"us-sc-supreme-court-2025-genai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-sc-supreme-court-2025-genai-policy","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Supreme Court of South Carolina — Judge John W. Kittredge","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court of South Carolina — Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:08.779337+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf":"aee98620d4ccfc92442b8d2e5f9f6ea839b65f1975eb9013249de0cf0357bb7a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf","state":"South Carolina","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Supreme Court of South Carolina issued an interim generative AI policy for judicial officers and employees on March 25, 2025. It limits use to approved tools, requires direct human oversight for drafting court documents, restricts confidential-record processing, and reserves corrective or disciplinary measures for violations.","title":"Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-03-25","url":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States Court of International Trade","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cit-court-2025-ai-practice-notice","issuedDate":"2025-03-21","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The notice is directed to attorneys using generative artificial intelligence in practice before the Court of International Trade.","It points attorneys to individual chambers procedures or orders about confidential or business proprietary information.","It reminds attorneys of Rule 11 obligations concerning representations to the court."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cit-court-2025-ai-practice-notice","recordId":"us-cit-court-2025-ai-practice-notice"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cit-court-2025-ai-practice-notice","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States Court of International Trade","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Court of International Trade — Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice Before the Court (primary, court-website)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:30.593225+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court":"ef6d0ca526e551a098a81d4be16c858b427d0f0e9a039d14e34bfc6469d259d3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Court of International Trade posted a court-wide notice telling attorneys using generative AI to be mindful of individual chambers procedures or orders on confidential and business proprietary information and of Rule 11 obligations regarding representations made to the court.","title":"Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice Before the Court","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-03-21","url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"21st and 335th Judicial District Courts of Texas","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2025-03-19","id":"us-tx-21st-335th-district-2025-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2025-03-19","judge":"Judge Carson Campbell; Judge John D. Winkelmann","keyProvisions":["Applies to cases in Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties.","Filers using AI for legal research or drafting must sign and submit a certification form before using AI-generated information.","The certification requires human/traditional-source verification of AI-created legal content."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-21st-335th-district-2025-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-21st-335th-district-2025-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-21st-335th-district-2025-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"21st and 335th Judicial District Courts of Texas — Judge Carson Campbell; Judge John D. Winkelmann","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"21st and 335th Judicial District Courts of Texas — 21st and 335th Judicial District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:15.456437+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf":"74edf60222586c533d5613f1e2f4e02e1098da0b349a40bf5611c0782ab29c5a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The 21st and 335th Judicial District standing order covers cases in Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created language, citations, arguments, and legal analysis were verified through traditional sources by a lawyer.","title":"21st and 335th Judicial District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-03-19","url":"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-paed-scott-2025-ai-citation-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2025-03-03","judge":"Kai N. Scott","keyProvisions":["Applies to AI use in citations of legal authority filed in cases assigned to Judge Scott.","The filer must disclose that generative AI assisted with citation of legal authority.","The filer must disclose the specific generative AI program used.","The filer must certify every citation of legal authority has been verified as accurate."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"paed-scott-2025-ai-citation-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-paed-scott-2025-ai-citation-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-paed-scott-2025-ai-citation-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Kai N. Scott","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Scott (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:04.389844+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf":"3665503e1f99151398233a9bfb2a20a0ca99ee2a4072fe7fdbdd5066ed813193"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kai N. Scott’s March 3, 2025 standing order requires an attorney or pro se party using generative AI, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or similar machine-learning tools, in a citation of legal authority filed with the court to disclose AI use, disclose the specific program, and certify every citation is accurate.","title":"Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Scott","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-03-03","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"State Bar of Michigan, Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Lawyers must understand AI capabilities and limitations including hallucination risk (MRPC 1.1) and must verify all AI-generated citations and text before filing (MRPC 1.3)","Client consent is required before inputting protected client information into any AI tool, and the provider's security measures must be evaluated per Ethics Opinion RI-381 (MRPC 1.6(c)(1))","Where AI shortens a task, a lawyer may bill only the actual time worked","AI subscription costs are firm overhead and may not be passed to clients absent advance agreement; per-use transactional AI costs may be billed as out-of-pocket expenses if disclosed in the engagement agreement","A firm may not bill clients for time spent learning to use AI tools","Managing and supervising lawyers must ensure firm personnel comply with the MRPC when using AI (MRPC 5.1, 5.3)","Submitting AI-hallucinated citations to a court violates MRPC 3.3","No blanket duty to disclose AI use to clients unless it implicates confidentiality, a court order, or materially affects the representation"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs","publisherRequirements":["verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision","competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"State Bar of Michigan, Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs","primary":false,"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs"},{"label":"SBM Ethics Opinion RI-381","primary":false,"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:50.710862+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs":"88b41a3d6769c7febcdf959f119862b5cbe35b4db8deb2c0cc663690d2701bf1","https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381":"b99134de18f9a4ccb9e8c3f3daee1929a98e9926a1bddea4876aca26ab3e145c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","state":"Michigan","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Michigan's operative AI guidance is a set of State Bar FAQs rather than a formal RI opinion. They impose verification, client-consent, vendor-security, billing and supervision duties under the MRPC, and adopt Ethics Opinion RI-381 as the vendor due-diligence standard for AI providers.","title":"State Bar of Michigan: AI FAQs for Attorneys","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Fees section updated","date":"2025-02-11","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","version":"Fees section update"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2024-11-18","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Grayson County District Courts and County Courts at Law","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2025-01-31","id":"us-tx-grayson-county-2025-local-rules-ai-filings","issuedDate":"2025-01-31","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI users must attach a certificate to each pleading generated using AI.","The certificate requires traditional-source verification by a human being.","Artificial intelligence for recording, listening, or transcribing in courtrooms and court offices is strictly prohibited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-grayson-county-2025-local-rules-ai-filings","recordId":"us-tx-grayson-county-2025-local-rules-ai-filings"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-grayson-county-2025-local-rules-ai-filings","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"Grayson County District Courts and County Courts at Law","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Grayson County District Courts and County Courts at Law — Grayson County Local Rules on Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265":"3ff7f218023209a456cb25ffbf5585f9bafea10da94687713a7995e845527907"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Grayson County’s local rules include an AI certificate and courtroom prohibition. Filers using AI for legal research or drafting must attach a certificate to AI-generated pleadings, verifying language, citations, arguments, and analysis through traditional legal sources, and AI recording or transcription in court areas is strictly prohibited.","title":"Grayson County Local Rules on Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-01-31","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Arizona","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2024-10-30","id":"az-acja-1-509-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies to all Arizona judicial branch personnel using generative AI in their work.","Confidential, sealed and personally identifiable information may not be entered into public tools.","Users must review and verify AI output; AI cannot substitute for judicial decision-making.","Courts must approve tools and maintain an inventory of AI use."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-03","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"az-acja-1-509-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/az-acja-1-509-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Arizona","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Arizona Courts — ACJA 1-509 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:26.219351+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf":"9f3b05c6b6bd3cc0442becf16e5c92ae5e7ea09e04559bcdd1ece567670c10c5"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf","state":"Arizona","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Section 1-509 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, adopted by the Supreme Court of Arizona on 30 October 2024 and amended 29 January 2025, governs how the state judicial branch uses generative AI and large language models. It sets approval, confidentiality, verification and accountability requirements for judges and court employees rather than for litigants.","title":"Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 1-509: Use of Generative AI Technology and Large Language Models","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Amendments to the original section adopted by Administrative Order 2025-24.","date":"2025-01-29","url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf","version":"Amended (Administrative Order 2025-24)"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-10-30","url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf","version":"Original (Administrative Order 2024-207)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York Supreme Court, Erie County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-weinmann-2025-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2025-01-01","judge":"Peter Allen Weinmann","keyProvisions":["The 2025 IAS rules stated that generative AI use was not prohibited.","Counsel or parties using AI resources or material had to identify the AI program.","They had to identify the portion of the filing drafted by AI.","They had to certify human review for accuracy and applicability."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-weinmann-2025-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-weinmann-2025-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-weinmann-2025-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"superseded","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"New York Supreme Court, Erie County — Judge Peter Allen Weinmann","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Supreme Court, Erie County — IAS Rules: A.I. (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeWeinmann2025.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeWeinmann2025.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeWeinmann2025.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeWeinmann2025.pdf","state":"New York","status":"superseded","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Peter Allen Weinmann’s January 1, 2025 IAS rules stated that generative AI use was not prohibited, but counsel or parties using AI resources or material such as ChatGPT had to disclose or certify the AI program, identify the filing portion drafted by AI, and certify human review for accuracy and applicability.","title":"IAS Rules: A.I.","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2025-01-01","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/8jd/pdfs/IAS_Rules/JudgeWeinmann2025.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"judgment-guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-co-al-hamim-star-hearthstone","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Submitting a brief containing AI-generated fictitious citations violates C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B)","The division declined to sanction the self-represented litigant but stated it will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future","First Colorado appellate treatment of the appropriate sanction for generative AI hallucinations"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-co-al-hamim-star-hearthstone"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-co-al-hamim-star-hearthstone","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"Colorado Court of Appeals","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:39.346235+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf":"d19318328e54ee547ab86d47046dc785af72758c590790b08264a5bbd6132305"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Colorado Court of Appeals published Al-Hamim to address AI hallucinations in appellate briefing. It held that fictitious AI-generated citations violate C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B), exercised discretion not to sanction the self-represented appellant, and warned that future AI-hallucinated filings may result in sanctions.","title":"Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 26 Dec 2024)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Published opinion","date":"2024-12-26","url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf","version":"2024 COA 128"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","court-staff","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Illinois Supreme Court","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2025-01-01","id":"il-supreme-court-ai-policy","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Use of AI by lawyers and self-represented litigants is permitted and expected to expand.","No requirement to disclose AI use in pleadings; existing rules on accuracy and candor apply.","Judges and court staff may use AI but retain full responsibility for decisions and work product.","AI use must not undermine due process, equal protection or access to justice."],"lastChecked":"2026-10-05","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-supreme-court-2025-ai-policy","recordId":"il-supreme-court-ai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-10-05","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/il-supreme-court-ai-policy","publisherRequirements":["permissive","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Illinois","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Illinois Supreme Court — AI Policy (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:57.805818+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf":"f84cb05cc319ac4ce0a14c5c7e42397b8c82fafc41dfdc3812bf4f4758587516"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"A statewide policy from the Supreme Court of Illinois, effective 1 January 2025, authorising the use of AI by litigants, lawyers, judges and court staff. It deliberately does not require disclosure of AI use in pleadings, relying on existing rules of professional conduct and civil procedure to police accuracy, and warns that AI must not compromise due process or privacy.","title":"Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20261005161517/https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-12-18","url":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","version":"Original (announced December 2024)"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"109th Judicial District Court of Texas","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-12-06","id":"us-tx-109th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2024-12-06","judge":"Judge John L. Pool","keyProvisions":["Applies to all cases in Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties.","AI users must sign and submit the attached form before using AI-generated information in court.","The certification requires human verification through traditional non-AI legal sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-109th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-109th-district-2024-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-109th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"109th Judicial District Court of Texas — Judge John L. Pool","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"109th Judicial District Court of Texas — 109th Judicial District Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:16.344681+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf":"89a2a732c5965fe7861f6fa710a19fbb1d568ba4ceb13485cb042f1ae89fff4f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Pool’s 109th Judicial District standing order applies to all cases in Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created or contributed language, citations, arguments, and legal analysis were verified by a human through traditional sources.","title":"109th Judicial District Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-12-06","url":"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["family","criminal"],"court":"New York Integrated Domestic Violence Court, New York County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-idv-dawson-2024-ai-affirmation","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Tandra L. Dawson","keyProvisions":["Applies when AI is used to prepare a filing involving substantive legal research and writing.","Counsel or a pro se litigant must add an affirmation at the end of the document.","The affirmation should say the legal research and writing was reviewed and verified for accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-idv-dawson-2024-ai-affirmation","recordId":"us-ny-idv-dawson-2024-ai-affirmation"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-idv-dawson-2024-ai-affirmation","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"New York Integrated Domestic Violence Court, New York County — Judge Tandra L. Dawson","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York Integrated Domestic Violence Court, New York County — Integrated Domestic Violence Court Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Tandra L. Dawson’s Integrated Domestic Violence Court rules, updated December 3, 2024, require counsel or a pro se litigant to submit an affirmation at the end of any filing involving substantive legal research and writing if AI such as ChatGPT was used to prepare it, and to affirm review and verification for accuracy.","title":"Integrated Domestic Violence Court Rules: Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-12-03","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/COURTS/1jd/supctmanh/Rules/IDV-tandra-dawson.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["A lawyer must understand the benefits and risks of using generative AI","A lawyer must check all work product for accuracy and must not defer to the judgment of generative AI","When in doubt, do not enter confidential or non-public information into a generative AI tool","A lawyer billing hourly may not bill clients for time saved by using AI","Where AI is used for client intake, prospective clients must be told they are communicating with an AI program","Client disclosure is required where the client would need to know about the AI use to make an informed decision"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices","publisherRequirements":["verification","competence","confidentiality","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure","other","verification"],"scope":"Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"AISC Ethical Best Practices (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf"},{"label":"Administrative Order 2024-33 (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.azbar.org/media/4lynbyiv/ao-2024-33.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:26.470626+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.azbar.org/media/4lynbyiv/ao-2024-33.pdf","https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.azbar.org/media/4lynbyiv/ao-2024-33.pdf":"a73aaf605829dd29f13aed3cdaa33f02ec6328696a9ab463bcbeec02dda926db","https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf":"0bd778029c185adcccd3c56889c951db3481d2e98dac9d97b02f2af059e1c7a8"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf","state":"Arizona","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Supreme Court-sponsored, non-binding Arizona guidance on generative AI for lawyers and judges. It requires users to understand the technology, check all output for accuracy rather than deferring to AI judgment, avoid entering confidential information when in doubt, refrain from billing time saved by AI, and tell prospective clients when they are dealing with an AI intake program.","title":"Arizona Steering Committee on AI and the Courts: Generative AI — Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Issued pursuant to Administrative Order 2024-33","date":"2024-11-14","url":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"The Mississippi Bar, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Lawyers must maintain a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks of the generative AI tools they use, or draw on others with that expertise (MRPC 1.1)","Affirmative duty to verify the accuracy and sufficiency of AI work product, calibrated to risk; bulk contract review may be validated on a representative subset (MRPC 1.1, 3.3)","Reasonable measures to protect confidential information; avoid inputting identifiable client information where possible; informed consent required where inadvertent disclosure remains a concern (MRPC 1.6)","Three mandatory client disclosure and informed consent triggers (MRPC 1.4): confidential client information will be provided to a third-party AI provider; the AI tool's cost will be charged to the client; or disclosure is required by court rules","Billing must not duplicate charges or inflate hours; if AI cost is passed to the client, informed consent and a written billing arrangement are required before billing begins (MRPC 1.5)","Supervisory attorneys must ensure subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer staff comply with confidentiality and verification duties, with training and written policies (MRPC 5.1, 5.3)","Does not address affirmative disclosure to tribunals absent a court standing order"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"The Mississippi Bar, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 landing page","primary":false,"url":"https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/","state":"Mississippi","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Mississippi's generative-AI ethics opinion is unusually specific about client disclosure. Routine AI use needs no disclosure, but three circumstances trigger mandatory disclosure and informed consent, and the opinion imposes an affirmative, risk-calibrated verification duty plus written agreement before AI costs are billed.","title":"Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267: lawyers' use of generative artificial intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Issued by the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","date":"2024-11-14","url":"https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/","version":"Opinion No. 267"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Judicial Council of Georgia","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-08-13","id":"us-ga-judicial-council-2024-ai-committee","issuedDate":"2024-08-13","judge":"Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs","keyProvisions":["The Chief Justice established an ad hoc committee to assess risks and benefits of generative AI on the courts.","The committee was charged with recommendations to prevent AI use from eroding public trust and confidence.","The charge includes AI evidence authentication, deepfakes, court data security, lawyer competency, and judicial conduct.","The Supreme Court of Georgia appointed committee members in administrative minutes filed October 22, 2024."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ga-judicial-council-2024-ai-committee","recordId":"us-ga-judicial-council-2024-ai-committee"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ga-judicial-council-2024-ai-committee","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Judicial Council of Georgia — Judge Michael P. Boggs","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Judicial Council of Georgia — Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (primary, state-judiciary-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf"},{"label":"Archived copy (Wayback Machine)","primary":false,"url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20241113120309/https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:58.479893+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf":"139eea8528713fc2e090e747059d636fcf587294569ccbc3c1927af9b60c2153"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf","state":"Georgia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Judicial Council of Georgia created an Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts in 2024. The official orders charge the committee with assessing generative AI risks and benefits for courts, evidence, data security, lawyer competency, judicial conduct, education, and court administration.","title":"Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20241113120309/https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf","basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-10-22","url":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf","version":"Amended"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges","court-staff"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Delaware Judiciary","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2024-10-21","id":"de-supreme-court-genai-interim-policy","issuedDate":"2024-10-21","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Judicial officers and staff may use only generative AI tools approved by the judiciary.","Training is required before use of an approved tool.","AI may not be used to make decisions; the human user remains fully responsible.","Confidential and non-public information must not be entered into unapproved tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-16","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"de-supreme-court-2024-genai-policy","recordId":"de-supreme-court-genai-interim-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-16","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/de-supreme-court-genai-interim-policy","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Delaware","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Delaware Courts — Interim GenAI policy (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:38.783732+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838":"6a824005f122da964dff95e8ae44d18f5277144aa8543f5e187e385d6e94344c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838","state":"Delaware","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"An interim policy adopted by the Supreme Court of Delaware on 21 October 2024 governing how judges and court personnel across the Delaware judiciary may use generative AI. Only approved tools may be used, users must complete training, decision-making cannot be delegated to AI, and users remain responsible for verifying and protecting the confidentiality of any output.","title":"Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-10-21","url":"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cod-prose-2024-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2024-10-21","judge":"Magistrate Judge Susan Prose","keyProvisions":["In consent cases, specified motions and opposed motions must contain a certification about use or non-use of generative AI.","In referral cases, the order applies to nondispositive opposed motions referred to the magistrate judge.","The preparer must certify no AI drafting or that AI-drafted language was personally reviewed by a human.","The certification must attest that legal citations are to actual cases or cited authority.","The court will strike filings that omit the certification."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cod-prose-2024-ai-certification","recordId":"us-cod-prose-2024-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cod-prose-2024-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado — Judge Susan Prose","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Colorado — Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Filings (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:37.738586+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf":"565b29fcfde65c51c10af7bb1f8ca148a734fb463d16cde60ba6f78909fcecb1"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Susan Prose’s District of Colorado standing order requires AI-use or non-use certifications for specified filings in consent cases and referred nondispositive opposed motions. The preparer must certify human review of AI-drafted language and that legal citations are actual authority, or the filing will be stricken.","title":"Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Filings","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-10-21","url":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Delaware Judiciary","courtLevel":"state-judiciary-wide","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-10-21","id":"us-de-supreme-court-2024-genai-policy","issuedDate":"2024-10-21","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The policy applies to authorized users in official duties and on state technology resources.","Authorized users are responsible for GenAI output accuracy and must use caution.","Decision-making functions may not be delegated to approved GenAI.","Non-public information may not be input into non-approved GenAI, and non-approved GenAI may not be used on state resources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"de-supreme-court-2024-genai-policy","recordId":"us-de-supreme-court-2024-genai-policy"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-de-supreme-court-2024-genai-policy","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification"],"scope":"Delaware Judiciary","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Delaware Judiciary — Order Adopting Interim Policy on the Use of GenAI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:56.954518+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848":"56daeb2beb6e077e6a8e57605145be7867bd81c02f8b416101003b0ade0bee7f"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848","state":"Delaware","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Delaware Supreme Court’s October 21, 2024 order adopts an interim GenAI policy for judicial officers, employees, law clerks, interns, externs, and volunteers. Authorized users remain responsible for GenAI output, may not delegate decision-making to GenAI, and may not enter non-public information into non-approved GenAI tools.","title":"Order Adopting Interim Policy on the Use of GenAI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-10-21","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges","court-staff","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Illinois (McHenry County)","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-il-22nd-circuit-ao-2024-23","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Circuit-level artificial intelligence policy and plan for McHenry County courts (terms not yet verified)"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-il-22nd-circuit-ao-2024-23"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-22nd-circuit-ao-2024-23","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Illinois (McHenry County)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Administrative Order 2024-23 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:10.937718+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf":"35587ad0a5ab302f0f195e89682469fc64728cf312e958bf1a299de0d17896bf"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The 22nd Judicial Circuit of Illinois adopted a circuit-level AI policy and plan by administrative order in October 2024, ahead of and going beyond the Illinois Supreme Court's statewide policy. Its operative terms were not read in this research run and must be confirmed.","title":"Illinois 22nd Judicial Circuit (McHenry County) Administrative Order 2024-23: Artificial Intelligence Policy and Plan","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial administrative order; the source gives a month only (issued October 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2024-10-01","url":"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf","version":"AO 2024-23"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York","courtLevel":"federal-bankruptcy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nysb-court-2024-local-rule-9011-ai","issuedDate":"2024-09-30","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Litigants remain responsible for legal documents produced with technology assistance.","The rule identifies ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, and generative AI services as examples.","Litigants must review and verify computer-generated content for compliance with Rule 9011."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nysb-court-2024-local-rule-9011-ai","recordId":"us-nysb-court-2024-local-rule-9011-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nysb-court-2024-local-rule-9011-ai","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Southern District of New York — Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1: Signing of Papers (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:05.980675+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf":"29abbed50c3a6b28cb447e57c9c0b96fa77c898a58dd08a2d2268e1d52f6c355"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court’s amended September 30, 2024 Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1 cautions litigants that technologies including ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, and generative AI services may produce inaccurate content and requires review and verification of computer-generated content for Rule 9011 compliance.","title":"Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1: Signing of Papers","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-09-30","url":"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Responsible generative AI use is consistent with the duties of competence, diligence and charging reasonable fees","Lawyers must not input confidential information into tools lacking adequate confidentiality and security protections, and should obtain informed client consent before doing so","Before filing, a lawyer must independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all AI-generated material (Rules 16-303, 16-804(C))","Lawyers must check court, agency and local rules on whether AI use is allowed and what disclosure is required","A lawyer may bill only for time actually spent when AI reduces the work, under Rule 16-105","Prior-client information retained by an AI tool can create Rule 16-109 conflicts that must be independently ruled out"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"State Bar of New Mexico Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (official PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:07.958124+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf":"dfd85dcc84b282cc38aa7f6cf030b7acf1a3df4ffd4002c5b1019406d80d2f7c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf","state":"New Mexico","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Formal Opinion 2024-004 answers yes, qualified, to whether New Mexico lawyers may use generative AI. It implicates Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104, 16-105, 16-106, 16-109, 16-303, 16-501, 16-503 and 16-804(C) NMRA, and requires competence, independent verification of output, confidentiality safeguards, conflicts checking and reasonable fees. The opinion is advisory and not binding on tribunals.","title":"Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2024-09-24","url":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mn-olpr-genai-ethics-guidance","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Informal guidance from the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, not a numbered LPRB opinion","Reported to treat documented informed consent for client data used with AI tools as an affirmative obligation under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6","Text not opened in this research run and must be confirmed before publication"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mn-olpr-genai-ethics-guidance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mn-olpr-genai-ethics-guidance","publisherRequirements":["confidentiality","consent","verification","competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Bench and Bar of Minnesota, September 2024","primary":false,"url":"https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962","state":"Minnesota","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Minnesota's disciplinary regulator issued informal generative-AI guidance through an article by the OLPR Director in September 2024. It is the closest thing Minnesota has to an ethics opinion and is reported to make documented informed consent for AI use of client data an affirmative Rule 1.6 obligation.","title":"Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility: ethics guidance for generative AI use","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Published in Bench and Bar of Minnesota; the source gives a month only (published September 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2024-09-01","url":"https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":"2024-07-29","id":"aba-formal-opinion-512","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the generative AI tools they use (Rule 1.1).","Informed client consent is required before entering confidential information into a self-learning tool (Rule 1.6).","Output must be verified before it is relied on or filed (Rules 1.1, 3.3).","Managerial and supervisory lawyers must establish policies for AI use by staff (Rules 5.1, 5.3).","Lawyers may not bill clients for time saved by AI or for learning to use a tool (Rule 1.5)."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-03","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"aba-formal-opinion-512"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/aba-formal-opinion-512","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","consent","verification","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"ABA — Formal Opinion 512 (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The American Bar Association's first formal ethics opinion on generative AI, issued 29 July 2024, applies the Model Rules to lawyers across the United States. It covers competence, confidentiality with informed client consent for self-learning tools, candor to tribunals, supervision of staff and vendors, and fees. It is permissive with cautions and has no successor opinion.","title":"ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-29","url":"https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Gray County Court","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-07-17","id":"us-tx-gray-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2024-07-17","judge":"Judge Chris Porter","keyProvisions":["Applies to every pending and future Gray County Court case.","AI users must sign and submit a form before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding.","The form certifies human verification of AI-created legal content through traditional sources."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-gray-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-gray-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-gray-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Gray County Court — Judge Chris Porter","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Gray County Court — Gray County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:59.488193+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014":"4ae4167d4356e9204a1eec4409da3480ccdbeb304b49b20fdb319ce9910834f7"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Gray County Court standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to submit a certification before using AI-generated information in court. The certification requires traditional-source verification of AI-created language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis.","title":"Gray County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-17","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Hudspeth County Court","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-07-12","id":"us-tx-hudspeth-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2024-07-12","judge":"Judge Joanna E. MacKenzie","keyProvisions":["Applies to every pending and future case in Hudspeth County Court.","AI users must sign and submit a form before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding.","The form certifies traditional-source accuracy verification of AI-generated legal content."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-hudspeth-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-hudspeth-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-hudspeth-county-court-2024-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Hudspeth County Court — Judge Joanna E. MacKenzie","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Hudspeth County Court — Hudspeth County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:06.421469+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997":"347d8cc9f39c9d169223cb8257823927941e2a8c9e678971eab9b68376d8ee28"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Hudspeth County Court standing order applies to all cases and requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to submit a certification before using AI-generated information. The certification covers language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and legal analysis verified through traditional legal sources.","title":"Hudspeth County Court Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-12","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-alnd-haikala-2024-ai-review","issuedDate":"2024-07-08","judge":"Judge Madeline H. Haikala","keyProvisions":["The initial order cautions lawyers and pro se litigants who use ChatGPT, Bard, Bing AI Chat, or other generative AI.","The court does not prohibit AI use to prepare filed documents.","Attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify computer-generated content for accuracy and compliance with Rule 11.","Counsel of record must instruct all attorneys working on the case to review the order."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"alnd-haikala-2024-ai-review","recordId":"us-alnd-haikala-2024-ai-review"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-alnd-haikala-2024-ai-review","publisherRequirements":["permissive"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama — Judge Madeline H. Haikala","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Alabama — Haikala Chambers Initial Order: Use of AI to Create Court Submissions (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:26.043358+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf":"7e0ca34786e8a9fd319615309b71b8a382af7c4501417fa386e98beb67952e2b"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf","state":"Alabama","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Haikala of the Northern District of Alabama permits generative AI use in preparing court submissions but requires review and verification. The chambers initial order, dated by the court PDF as of July 8, 2024, cautions attorneys and pro se litigants about accuracy and Rule 11 obligations.","title":"Haikala Chambers Initial Order: Use of AI to Create Court Submissions","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-08","url":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Collin County Courts at Law","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-07-03","id":"us-tx-collin-county-courts-at-law-2024-ai-standing-order-3","issuedDate":"2024-07-03","judge":"County Court at Law Judges of Collin County","keyProvisions":["Any filed document prepared using AI in any way must disclose that AI was used.","The filer must certify that every legal or record citation was verified and accurate.","The court may strike noncompliant filings."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-collin-county-courts-at-law-2024-ai-standing-order-3","recordId":"us-tx-collin-county-courts-at-law-2024-ai-standing-order-3"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-collin-county-courts-at-law-2024-ai-standing-order-3","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Collin County Courts at Law — Judge County Court at Law Judges of Collin County","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Collin County Courts at Law — Collin County Courts at Law Standing Order No. 3: Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:00.364965+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030":"ae61b8c53ff791862ac5346bc6b8897b18bdfb542b03f616f3570bb9115de772"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Collin County Courts at Law Standing Order No. 3 requires disclosure whenever an attorney or self-represented party used AI in any way to prepare a filed document. The filing must certify that each citation to law or the record has been verified and is accurate, with noncompliance potentially leading to striking.","title":"Collin County Courts at Law Standing Order No. 3: Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-03","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms","providers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Minnesota State Bar Association, Artificial Intelligence Working Group","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mn-msba-ai-working-group-report","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Recommends an AI regulatory sandbox for access-to-justice large language model tools","Provides guidance on lawyer use of generative AI under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct","Bar association report, not an ethics opinion; the LPRB has issued no numbered AI opinion"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mn-msba-ai-working-group-report"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mn-msba-ai-working-group-report","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Minnesota State Bar Association, Artificial Intelligence Working Group","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"MSBA AI Working Group Report (official announcement)","primary":false,"url":"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:00.048684+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704":"395e8039bb7a1163e7f752ad61209fc3081a30dd4d4839b039f3c84ca5dde891"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704","state":"Minnesota","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Minnesota's bar produced a working-group report rather than an ethics opinion. It recommends an AI regulatory sandbox for access-to-justice LLM tools and sets out guidance on lawyer use of generative AI under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Text not verified in this run.","title":"Minnesota State Bar Association AI Working Group: Final Report and Recommendations","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Adopted June/July 2024; the source gives a month only (adopted June/July 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2024-07-01","url":"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704","version":"Final Report and Recommendations"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Seventh Judicial Circuit of Missouri (Clay County)","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mo-clay-county-local-rule-3-3-1","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Requires disclosure of artificial intelligence use in filings in the 7th Judicial Circuit (terms not yet verified)","One of at least four Missouri circuits with local AI disclosure rules","No statewide Missouri Supreme Court AI filing rule exists"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mo-clay-county-local-rule-3-3-1"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mo-clay-county-local-rule-3-3-1","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"Seventh Judicial Circuit of Missouri (Clay County)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":null,"reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":[],"status":"PENDING","textHashes":{}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":null,"state":"Missouri","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Missouri has no statewide AI filing rule, so several circuits have made their own. Clay County's Local Rule 3.3.1 requires disclosure of artificial intelligence use in filings from July 2024. Its operative wording was not read in this research run and must be confirmed.","title":"Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) Local Rule 3.3.1: Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Adopted July 2024; the source gives a month only (adopted July 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2024-07-01","url":null,"version":"Local Rule 3.3.1"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-07-01","id":"us-tx-bastrop-district-courts-2024-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2024-07-01","judge":"Judge Elizabeth F. Beyer","keyProvisions":["Applies to all causes filed in the Bastrop County District Clerk’s Office.","AI users must sign and submit a certification before using AI-generated information in court.","The certification requires traditional-source verification by a Texas-licensed attorney."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-bastrop-district-courts-2024-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-bastrop-district-courts-2024-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-bastrop-district-courts-2024-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County — Judge Elizabeth F. Beyer","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts of Bastrop County — Bastrop County District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:11.382318+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297":"c0642ba2fdf1b3b4c0d6268bebcf75234364aba24824b17ae3f6fa24110945c2"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Bastrop County district-court AI standing order, marked amended July 1, 2024, applies to district-court causes in Bastrop County. Attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting must submit a certification that AI-created legal content was verified through traditional sources.","title":"Bastrop County District Courts Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-07-01","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Third Judicial District of Kansas (Shawnee County District Court)","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":"2024-06-14","id":"us-ks-shawnee-county-dcr-3-125","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Applies where any portion of a pleading or other paper was drafted using generative AI, naming ChatGPT, Harvey.AI and Google Bard as examples","Filer must verify that any generated language, materials or content was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases or other reliable means","Filer must disclose to the court and opposing parties at the time of filing, in writing and clearly marked on the first page, that the document contains AI-generated content","The disclosure must include a certification that the content was checked for accuracy as required by the rule","AI systems may not be factually or legally trustworthy sources of information without human verification","Violation may subject attorneys and self-represented litigants to sanctions"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ks-shawnee-county-dcr-3-125"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ks-shawnee-county-dcr-3-125","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Third Judicial District of Kansas (Shawnee County District Court)","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Shawnee County DCR 3.125","primary":false,"url":"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti":"7abc08f0846ebb3ff5493c4071e7168353021e435057934cfbb97863840846d3"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti","state":"Kansas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Shawnee County District Court requires both verification and disclosure. Any filer who used generative AI for any portion of a pleading must check the output for accuracy against print reporters or traditional databases and must state on the first page, in writing, that the document contains AI-generated content, with a certification of the accuracy check. Sanctions may follow a violation.","title":"Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Effective 14 June 2024","date":"2024-06-14","url":"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti","version":"DCR 3.125"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct per se prohibits a lawyer from using AI as a tool in law practice","Lawyers must check jurisdiction-specific rules and standing orders on whether generative AI is prohibited, whether disclosure is required, and whether human verification must be certified","Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and not delegate it to an AI tool","Efficiency gains must not result in double billing or falsely inflated claims of time (Rules 1.5, 8.4(c), 8.4(d))","Client confidentiality must be maintained, with particular caution about generative AI intake chatbots","AI-assisted work must be supervised as with any other assistance"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"West Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (official PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:06.608452+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf":"fc1425f913d4dc9eb616bc4021fa32ca3fea905b536b776bcdebfcaac6268b5c"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","state":"West Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"LEI 24-01 holds that nothing in the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct per se prohibits AI use in law practice. It distinguishes non-generative from generative AI, maps the main legal use cases, and requires lawyers to exercise independent judgment, communicate with clients, maintain confidentiality, keep fees reasonable, comply with advertising rules and supervise AI-assisted work.","title":"Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2024-06-14","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Official source URL repaired; verify current document and case-specific applicability"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt the proposed special AI drafting rule at that time. The decision reminds parties and counsel of existing filing duties and accuracy requirements. The abandoned proposal is not an operative AI certification rule.","This is a historical non-adoption decision, not proof that no later or case-specific requirement applies."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["This is a historical non-adoption decision, not proof that no later or case-specific requirement applies."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Court Decision on Proposed Rule","sha256":"55244e41b5b47dcaa0c4982a0b0aa5fa2c2a77c9b80dd625b02d81918c9f7d72","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"withdrawn","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"Fifth Circuit decision about the proposed Rule 32.3/Form 6 AI certification amendment.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Current official source document; version review required","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf"},{"label":"Previous reported source URL (retained for monitoring history)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:08.876549+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf":"ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceRepairHistory":[{"newSourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","observedAt":"2026-11-01T17:28:24.615021+00:00","previousRecord":{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false,"reason":"Proposed rule not adopted"},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt the proposed special AI drafting rule at that time. The decision reminds parties and counsel of existing filing duties and accuracy requirements. The abandoned proposal is not an operative AI certification rule.","This is a historical non-adoption decision, not proof that no later or case-specific requirement applies."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["This is a historical non-adoption decision, not proof that no later or case-specific requirement applies."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Court Decision on Proposed Rule","sha256":"55244e41b5b47dcaa0c4982a0b0aa5fa2c2a77c9b80dd625b02d81918c9f7d72","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-03","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"withdrawn","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"Fifth Circuit decision about the proposed Rule 32.3/Form 6 AI certification amendment.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.450134+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","state":null,"status":"withdrawn","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"The Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt the proposed special AI drafting rule at that time. The decision reminds parties and counsel of existing filing duties and accuracy requirements. The abandoned proposal is not an operative AI certification rule.","title":"Proposed amendment to Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3 and Form 6 (generative AI certification)","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-06-01","url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","version":"Court decision not to adopt"}]},"reason":"Official same-host301 Location with raw spaces; encoded target verified200 PDF, title Court Decision on Proposed Rule, Fifth Judicial Circuit. SHA256 exactly equals existing primaryReview.sha256. Same-byte relocation of previously reviewed historical non-adoption decision; not a new law/current supersession review. Raw Location retained in ca5-verification.json."}],"sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","state":null,"status":"withdrawn","statusBasis":"Official source retrieved on 2026-11-01; document revision or relocation recorded. Current applicability requires review.","summary":"The Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt the proposed special AI drafting rule at that time. The decision reminds parties and counsel of existing filing duties and accuracy requirements. The abandoned proposal is not an operative AI certification rule.","title":"Proposed amendment to Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3 and Form 6 (generative AI certification)","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-06-01","url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","version":"Court decision not to adopt"},{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Direct official-source retrieval; applicability review required","changes":"Official same-host301 Location with raw spaces; encoded target verified200 PDF, title Court Decision on Proposed Rule, Fifth Judicial Circuit. SHA256 exactly equals existing primaryReview.sha256. Same-byte relocation of previously reviewed historical non-adoption decision; not a new law/current supersession review. Raw Location retained in ca5-verification.json.","date":null,"url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","version":"Source repair 2026-11-01"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-il-cook-ramos-2024-ai-verification","issuedDate":"2024-05-30","judge":"Sandra Gisela Ramos","keyProvisions":["A party submitting a document, motion, brief, or memorandum must disclose in writing on the submission that AI was used.","The written disclosure must also state that the party verified the existence and accuracy of authority cited.","Failure to make the AI disclosure and verification may result in sanctions.","The order is dated May 30, 2024."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"il-cook-ramos-2024-ai-verification","recordId":"us-il-cook-ramos-2024-ai-verification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-cook-ramos-2024-ai-verification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division — Judge Sandra Gisela Ramos","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division — Law Division Standing Order (primary, court-pdf)","primary":false,"url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:32:56.811298+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI":"6d67ef9b22dc1a0cce060923d50ce5a7b083d94467e8ffa0f75b65c936998613"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI","state":"Illinois","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Ramos’s Cook County Law Division standing order, dated May 30, 2024, requires a party submitting any document, motion, brief, or memorandum to disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used. The party must also state that authority cited has been verified for existence and accuracy.","title":"Law Division Standing Order","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-05-30","url":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["With appropriate safeguards, lawyers may use AI in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct","Lawyers must be competent in the use of AI technologies and must verify that citations accurately reflect the content referenced","Lawyers must safeguard client information and ensure AI systems handling it adhere to strict confidentiality measures","Lawyers must communicate with clients about their AI use and, if necessary, obtain consent before using certain AI tools","AI-related expenses must be reasonable and appropriately disclosed to clients","Lawyers should be transparent with clients, colleagues and the courts about AI use, including its limitations and uncertainties","AI does not replace personal review of cases, statutes and other legislative materials"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"A joint opinion of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia bar ethics committees concluding that, with appropriate safeguards, lawyers may use AI consistently with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. It sets out twelve best practices spanning truthfulness, citation verification, competence, confidentiality, conflicts, client communication, bias, misuse, billing, professional judgment and transparency.","title":"Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2024-05-22","url":"https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nh-bar-ethics-corner-ai-in-practice","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["NH RPC 1.1 requires understanding how an AI system is designed and operates before relying on output","NH RPC 1.6 requires reviewing vendor terms and privacy policies before inputting client information","Lawyers must verify the accuracy of AI results and be able to explain them to a court","Unverified AI content risks Rule 11 sanctions and violations of RPC 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1","Generative AI should generally not be used to draft pleadings because that usually discloses confidential client information to the tool"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-nh-bar-ethics-corner-ai-in-practice"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nh-bar-ethics-corner-ai-in-practice","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"NHBA, Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice","primary":false,"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/"},{"label":"NHBA, Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence","primary":false,"url":"https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:52.351885+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/","https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/":"ebeb03ea94f17f268910ca680716bc8a9b5ce77c2acf127c9b8fc71a4c1bdc69","https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/":"763994ae697098fcb9af20e50be32c1520f9962c6eb3b3d8b0fc579d32747590"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/","state":"New Hampshire","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"A practical ethics article from the New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee applying NH RPC 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1 to generative AI. It stresses technology competence, review of vendor privacy policies before entering client data, and verification of AI output, citing Mata v. Avianca. It is guidance rather than a formal opinion.","title":"Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice (NHBA Ethics Corner)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication; companion article on drafting documents with AI","date":"2024-05-15","url":"https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/","version":"Ethics Corner article"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-paed-hodge-2024-gai-rule11-26g","issuedDate":"2024-05-10","judge":"Kelley B. Hodge","keyProvisions":["Applies to counsel and pro se litigants using GAI in filings.","Also covers discovery requests, responses, and objections served or delivered.","The procedure requires compliance with Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and ethical rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"paed-hodge-2024-gai-rule11-26g","recordId":"us-paed-hodge-2024-gai-rule11-26g"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-paed-hodge-2024-gai-rule11-26g","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Kelley B. Hodge","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Civil Procedures: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:05.520623+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf":"50c212a93ab8a39b390b8c3864b52b63a484b6f7cc833267e52ce3db649a82f0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kelley B. Hodge’s civil procedures state that anyone, counsel or pro se litigant, using generative artificial intelligence in connection with filing a pleading, motion, or paper, or serving or delivering discovery requests, responses, or objections, must comply with Rules 11(b), 26(g), other relevant rules, and applicable ethical rules.","title":"Civil Procedures: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-05-10","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-paed-pratter-2024-genai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2024-05-03","judge":"Gene E. K. Pratter","keyProvisions":["Applies to counsel and self-represented parties in cases assigned to Judge Pratter.","Generative AI use in preparing filings or court correspondence must be disclosed.","The disclosure must be a clear and plain factual statement.","The filer must certify every citation to law or the record as authentic and accurate."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"paed-pratter-2024-genai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-paed-pratter-2024-genai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-paed-pratter-2024-genai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Judge Gene E. K. Pratter","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Pennsylvania — Standing Order Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Pratter (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:03.382252+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf":"518da48a5c2a16dd20b6d98b4efbde854b326686b0560b711f447e988a40486a"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Gene E. K. Pratter’s May 3, 2024 standing order requires counsel or self-represented parties to disclose any generative AI use in preparing a complaint, answer, motion, brief, other paper, or court correspondence. If used, the filer must certify every citation to law or the record as authentic and accurate.","title":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Pratter","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-05-03","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Lawyers must obtain education and training to determine which generative AI is appropriate for firm use (Rule 4-1.1 and Comment [6])","Before use, assess the platform's terms and conditions, the security of information input, how that information is used, and what data sources produce responses (Rule 4-1.6)","Make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorised disclosure or access, including by supervised persons (Rule 4-1.6(c), Comments [15] and [16])","Rule 4-3.4(c) prohibits knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal's rules, which reaches court AI orders","Lawyers must maintain professional independence and may not rely solely on AI-generated content (Rule 4-5.4)","AI-assisted work must be verified for accuracy and content as with any nonlawyer assistance (Rule 4-5.3)","Managers and supervisors must ensure conformity and provide appropriate training (Rule 4-5.1, 4-5.3)","Consider how generative AI affects the reasonableness of fees (Rule 4-1.5(a))","Generative AI is not always accurate, so competence and supervision are needed to avoid false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal (Rule 4-3.3)"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11","primary":false,"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/"},{"label":"Missouri informal opinions index","primary":false,"url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinions-search/by-year/"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:59.280438+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/","https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinions-search/by-year/"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/":"77ee864a13e316e5d90413a16e8d90d15e441eda695f289a3dfab88a94fbe0ef","https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinions-search/by-year/":"ff21ae28ba29588543d937a641aa08d68af0b442b7c4d9d34c9b23560e611051"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/","state":"Missouri","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Missouri's ethics counsel answered a firm asking how to build a generative-AI policy. The opinion walks through competence and training, platform assessment and confidentiality safeguards, obedience to court AI rules, professional independence, verification of AI output as nonlawyer work, supervision, fee reasonableness and candour toward the tribunal.","title":"Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11: lawyer's use of generative artificial intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Adopted by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel","date":"2024-04-25","url":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/","version":"Informal Opinion 2024-11"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of Hawaii","courtLevel":"state-supreme","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-04-16","id":"us-hi-supreme-court-2024-ai-committee","issuedDate":"2024-04-16","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The order establishes a Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts.","The committee is directed to research AI capabilities, limitations, and risks to the judiciary.","The committee must determine approaches for incorporating AI into court operations.","The committee may provide guidance or policies regarding AI usage.","The committee may recommend rules for legal and ethical issues arising from AI in court operations and law practice."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"hi-supreme-court-2024-ai-committee","recordId":"us-hi-supreme-court-2024-ai-committee"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-hi-supreme-court-2024-ai-committee","publisherRequirements":["competence"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Hawaii","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court of Hawaii — Order Establishing the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:40.700120+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf":"36e7d7af65387f141bbf8bf978d86faab06bec4ec92bf70334e78c7185b5a784"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf","state":"Hawaii","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Hawaii Supreme Court’s administrative order establishes a Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, effective April 16, 2024. The committee is charged with studying AI capabilities and risks, possible court operations uses, guidance or policies, self-represented litigant needs, and potential rule recommendations.","title":"Order Establishing the Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-04-16","url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States Patent and Trademark Office, including PTAB and TTAB","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2024-04-11","id":"us-uspto-office-2024-ai-tools-guidance","issuedDate":"2024-04-11","judge":"Katherine K. Vidal","keyProvisions":["The guidance applies to practice before the USPTO, including filings submitted to the PTAB and TTAB.","There is no prohibition against using computer tools, including generative AI, to draft documents for USPTO submission.","There is not presently a general duty to inform the USPTO that an AI tool was used unless specifically requested.","Any paper submitted to the USPTO must be reviewed by the party or parties presenting it, who remain responsible for the contents.","Parties should confirm facts, citations, legal contentions, and confidentiality obligations when AI tools are used.","AI systems may not obtain USPTO.gov accounts or apply a person’s signature without that person personally entering it."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"uspto-office-2024-ai-tools-guidance","recordId":"us-uspto-office-2024-ai-tools-guidance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-uspto-office-2024-ai-tools-guidance","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification"],"scope":"United States Patent and Trademark Office, including PTAB and TTAB — Judge Katherine K. Vidal","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Patent and Trademark Office, including PTAB and TTAB — Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (primary, govinfo)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:44.624093+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf":"d206cbccf3a9bb1b0ab7fb09aed86406263f54a21641cc8646074e8faee4b013"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The USPTO guidance states that AI tools are not prohibited and generally need not be disclosed in USPTO practice, including PTAB and TTAB filings, but signed AI-assisted papers must be human reviewed, supported by reasonable inquiry, checked for factual and legal accuracy, and handled to protect confidentiality and USPTO systems.","title":"Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-04-11","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States Patent and Trademark Office","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":"2024-04-11","id":"uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Signature requirements under 37 CFR 11.18 apply to AI-drafted submissions; the signer certifies reasonable inquiry.","Duty of candor and good faith extends to AI-assisted prior-art searches and responses.","Confidential client and export-controlled information must not be entered into tools that may disclose it.","No duty to disclose AI use unless specifically required or material to patentability."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-22","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-22","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance","publisherRequirements":["verification","confidentiality","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"United States Patent and Trademark Office","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Federal Register — USPTO AI tools guidance","primary":true,"url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:15.880891+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent":"027868c31152b32e642ccece8a0fed83dacbfaaea0593750e4460d1ab5804ab8"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Guidance published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on 11 April 2024 reminding practitioners that existing signature, candor and confidentiality duties apply when AI tools are used to prepare filings. Practitioners must review AI-assisted documents before submission, must not disclose client information to tools without safeguards, and remain responsible for accuracy.","title":"Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the USPTO","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-04-11","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent","version":"Federal Register notice (89 FR 25609)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms","judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence","courtLevel":"report","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"report","effectiveDate":"2024-04-06","id":"nysba-task-force-ai-report-2024","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Report p. 53: NYSBA should adopt the AI and generative-AI guidelines and assign a standing section or committee to update them periodically.","Guidelines p. 57: Rule 1.1 competence requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks and ethical implications of AI tools used for communication, advertising, research, legal writing and investigation.","Guidelines p. 57: lawyers should consider engagement-letter language stating that AI tools may be used in the representation and seek the client's acknowledgement.","Guidelines p. 58: lawyers must take precautions to protect sensitive client data and ensure no tool compromises confidentiality; even with informed consent, lawyers should obtain provider assurances and monitor changes.","Guidelines pp. 59-60: supervising lawyers must ensure lawyer, nonlawyer and tool use complies with ethics rules and that AI-generated work is accurate and complete.","Guidelines p. 59: lawyers should not rely exclusively on AI output when giving legal advice and must maintain independent professional judgment."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-16","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"nysba-task-force-ai-report-2024"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-16","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/nysba-task-force-ai-report-2024","publisherRequirements":["competence","confidentiality","verification","supervision","consent","permissive"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"NYSBA — Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:05.091735+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf":"e2261c84c89d3ccfa9ac9390ce5ea0ee51afdbd419133281d2905edc95024d34"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"New York State Bar Association's April 2024 task-force report recommends AI and generative-AI guidelines for New York lawyers. It is guidance rather than a court rule: lawyers should understand AI tools, protect confidential client data, consider engagement-letter disclosure, supervise lawyers, nonlawyers and tools, verify AI work product, and maintain independent professional judgment.","title":"Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-04-06","url":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","version":"House of Delegates approved report"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","firms"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Competence includes understanding enough about the technology to be reasonably confident it will advance the client's interests (Rule 1.1)","Generative AI is not a search engine over a database; lawyers who rely blindly on GAI output do so at considerable peril","Before entering client confidences, determine whether the product saves the information and whether the interaction will affect answers given to future users outside the firm (Rule 1.6)","Where a fee is based solely on time spent, a lawyer may bill only for time actually spent even if GAI reduces it (Rule 1.5)","Absent prior agreement, a lawyer may not charge separately for the perceived value of GAI work but may pass through out-of-pocket GAI expenses the client agreed to pay","Lawyers must be attentive to candour and fairness duties, especially before tribunals that have adopted AI rules or orders (Rules 3.3, 3.4)","Supervisory duties under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 extend to supervised lawyers' and nonlawyers' use of GAI"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality","consent","supervision"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","consent","other","verification"],"scope":"D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Ethics Opinion 388","primary":false,"url":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:41.514641+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388":"73e2323282d93e552efe5aee083e0c5e403a6cb39973b8b9dd8b18f0c36b5a57"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388","state":"District of Columbia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The D.C. Bar's generative-AI opinion. Lawyers must understand that GAI generates rather than retrieves, must not rely blindly on output, must check whether a product retains inputs or feeds them to other users before entering client confidences, may bill only time actually spent, and must supervise AI use by others under Rules 5.1 and 5.3.","title":"D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Published April 2024; the source gives a month only (published April 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st","date":"2024-04-01","url":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388","version":"Opinion 388"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["all","lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"30th District Court of Wichita County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2024-03-26","id":"us-tx-wichita-30th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2024-03-26","judge":"Judge Jeff McKnight","keyProvisions":["AI users must attach the certification to each pleading generated using AI.","The certification requires traditional-source human verification of AI-created language, citations, and legal analysis.","AI recording, listening, or transcription in courtrooms and court offices is strictly prohibited."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"tx-wichita-30th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","recordId":"us-tx-wichita-30th-district-2024-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-tx-wichita-30th-district-2024-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","prohibition"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"30th District Court of Wichita County — Judge Jeff McKnight","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"30th District Court of Wichita County — 30th District Court of Wichita County Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, state-court-site)","primary":true,"url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:25.788442+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866"],"status":"CHANGED","textHashes":{"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866":"36cc4607d444bcdb097f32ac321259c6b77ca02424c919701309dbd2583858c6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The 30th District Court of Wichita County standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants using AI for legal research or drafting to attach a certificate to each AI-generated pleading. It also prohibits AI in courtrooms or court offices for recording, listening to, or transcribing activities.","title":"30th District Court of Wichita County Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-03-26","url":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-uspto-boards-2024-ai-misconduct-memo","issuedDate":"2024-02-06","judge":"Katherine K. Vidal","keyProvisions":["The memorandum is addressed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Office of General Counsel.","Existing USPTO rules apply regardless of how a submission is generated, including with AI assistance.","Any paper submitted under signature must be reviewed by the person presenting the paper.","The reasonable inquiry can include determining how the paper was prepared and verifying factual and legal representations.","Sanctions may include striking papers, preclusion, affecting weight, terminating proceedings, criminal liability, and disciplinary action."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"uspto-boards-2024-ai-misconduct-memo","recordId":"us-uspto-boards-2024-ai-misconduct-memo"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-uspto-boards-2024-ai-misconduct-memo","publisherRequirements":["certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification"],"scope":"Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO — Judge Katherine K. Vidal","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO — The Applicability of Existing Regulations as to Party and Practitioner Misconduct Related to the Use of Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:39.940015+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf":"3e64a8bfd50a00c27d25a076574e8cdeb5cbb292c54838238234d83e22b65862"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The USPTO Director advised the PTAB, TTAB, and General Counsel that existing regulations apply when parties and practitioners use AI in Board submissions, requiring signed papers to be reviewed by a person, accuracy of factual and legal representations verified, confidentiality protected, and sanctions available for misconduct.","title":"The Applicability of Existing Regulations as to Party and Practitioner Misconduct Related to the Use of Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-02-06","url":"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["court-staff","judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Connecticut Judicial Branch","courtLevel":"policy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"policy","effectiveDate":"2024-02-01","id":"ct-judicial-branch-responsible-ai-policy-framework","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI systems used by the branch must be inventoried and risk-assessed before deployment.","Human oversight is required for any AI that affects court operations or the public.","Procurement must address data security, bias testing and vendor accountability."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-22","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"ct-judicial-branch-responsible-ai-policy-framework"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-22","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ct-judicial-branch-responsible-ai-policy-framework","publisherRequirements":["risk-classification","record-keeping","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","record-keeping"],"scope":"Connecticut Judicial Branch","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Connecticut Judicial Branch — Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1 (PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf","state":"Connecticut","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"An internal governance framework adopted by the Connecticut Judicial Branch on 1 February 2024 for how the branch itself procures, deploys and monitors AI systems. It sets principles of accountability, transparency, fairness and security for court technology, requires risk assessment before deployment, and keeps human decision-makers responsible. It does not regulate filings by lawyers or litigants.","title":"Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-02-01","url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf","version":"v2.1"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-ny-supreme-zuckerman-2024-ai-submission-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"David S. Zuckerman","keyProvisions":["Counsel must disclose AI-generated portions of written submissions.","Self-represented parties must make the same disclosure.","The disclosure must identify what portion of the submission used AI technology."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-supreme-zuckerman-2024-ai-submission-disclosure","recordId":"us-ny-supreme-zuckerman-2024-ai-submission-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-supreme-zuckerman-2024-ai-submission-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County — Judge David S. Zuckerman","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County — Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/9jd/PartRules/PR_DSZuckerman.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/9jd/PartRules/PR_DSZuckerman.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/9jd/PartRules/PR_DSZuckerman.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/9jd/PartRules/PR_DSZuckerman.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice David S. Zuckerman’s part rules require counsel and self-represented parties to disclose to the court whether any portion of a written submission was generated by any form of artificial intelligence and, if so, identify the portion that used that technology.","title":"Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-02-01","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/COURTS/9jd/PartRules/PR_DSZuckerman.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-nj-supreme-court-2024-ai-lawyer-guidelines","issuedDate":"2024-01-24","judge":"Stuart Rabner","keyProvisions":["Lawyers must check and verify all AI-generated information to ensure accuracy.","The RPCs do not require lawyers to disclose AI use to the court.","Lawyers remain responsible for pleadings, arguments, evidence, and client communications using AI.","Lawyers must ensure AI system security before entering non-public client information."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"nj-supreme-court-2024-ai-lawyer-guidelines","recordId":"us-nj-supreme-court-2024-ai-lawyer-guidelines"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nj-supreme-court-2024-ai-lawyer-guidelines","publisherRequirements":["verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of New Jersey — Judge Stuart Rabner","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Supreme Court of New Jersey — Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:53.137032+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf":"6517163ae560a6cff00196b5df701f5d180552c42e5caf4bb31f8128fbe7e7bc"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","state":"New Jersey","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The New Jersey Supreme Court’s January 24, 2024 Notice to the Bar provides preliminary AI guidelines for New Jersey lawyers. It states lawyers have an ethical duty to check and verify AI-generated information, remain responsible for pleadings, arguments, and evidence, and that the RPCs do not require court disclosure of AI use.","title":"Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2024-01-24","url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Supreme Court of Louisiana, Office of the General Counsel","courtLevel":"guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The ethical and professional rules governing the bench and the Bar are robust and broad enough to cover the landscape of issues presented by AI in its current forms","Attorneys remain ultimately responsible for their work product and pleadings regardless of AI use, and must maintain technology competence, protect confidential client information and avoid misrepresenting fact or law","Cites Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3 and 5.3 and Code of Civil Procedure articles 371 and 863","Judges remain ultimately responsible for their opinions and decisions and must maintain competence in technology (Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(4), 3A(7), 3B(1))","The Court's Technology Commission and Rules Committee will monitor whether future rule changes are needed"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai","publisherRequirements":["competence","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","verification"],"scope":"Supreme Court of Louisiana, Office of the General Counsel","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Louisiana Supreme Court letter (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:48.261562+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf":"545135fe9044d65221088b333339db69dd050291ae530460f567e227ff3a743e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf","state":"Louisiana","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Louisiana Supreme Court chose not to make an AI rule. Its January 2024 letter to the State Bar states existing ethical and professional rules are broad enough for AI, lists the conduct rules and Code of Civil Procedure articles that apply, confirms judges' parallel responsibilities, and notes the Court's Technology Commission and Rules Committee will monitor developments.","title":"Louisiana Supreme Court letter to the Louisiana State Bar Association on the emergence of artificial intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Letter from the Court's General Counsel on behalf of the Justices","date":"2024-01-22","url":"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County","courtLevel":"state-trial","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2019-01-01","id":"us-ny-county-blackwood-2023-ai-submission-disclosure","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Helen M. Blackwood","keyProvisions":["Counsel must disclose when a portion of a written submission was generated by AI.","Self-represented parties are subject to the same disclosure requirement.","The disclosure must state what portion of the submission used AI technology."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"ny-county-blackwood-2023-ai-submission-disclosure","recordId":"us-ny-county-blackwood-2023-ai-submission-disclosure"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-county-blackwood-2023-ai-submission-disclosure","publisherRequirements":["disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure"],"scope":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County — Judge Helen M. Blackwood","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County — Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/9jd/PartRules/PR_HMBlackwood.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/9jd/PartRules/PR_HMBlackwood.pdf"],"status":"ERROR","textHashes":{"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/9jd/PartRules/PR_HMBlackwood.pdf":null}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/9jd/PartRules/PR_HMBlackwood.pdf","state":"New York","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Justice Helen M. Blackwood’s part rules, amended December 13, 2023, require counsel and self-represented parties to disclose to the court if any portion of a written submission was generated by any form of artificial intelligence and, if so, to identify what portion used that technology.","title":"Part Rules: Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-12-13","url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/9jd/PartRules/PR_HMBlackwood.pdf","version":"As posted (undated)"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["all"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"court-rule","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mied-court-2023-proposed-ai-disclosure-rule","issuedDate":"2023-12-08","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["The notice published proposed amendments to Local Rule 5.1 for comment after approval for publication by district judges.","The proposed rule defines artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence.","If generative AI is used to compose or draft a paper presented for filing, the filer must disclose the use.","The filer must attest that citations of authority were verified by a human using print volumes or traditional legal databases.","The filer must also attest that the language in the paper was checked for accuracy."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"mied-court-2023-proposed-ai-disclosure-rule","recordId":"us-mied-court-2023-proposed-ai-disclosure-rule"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-mied-court-2023-proposed-ai-disclosure-rule","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"proposed","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Michigan — Notice of Proposed Amendments to Local Rules (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:49.944720+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf":"f66096dad39e488be5d0e137b68edc2c65decead7e0aa35316fb59c5ce2d0730"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf","state":"Michigan","status":"proposed","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Eastern District of Michigan notice dated December 8, 2023, proposed a Local Rule 5.1 amendment requiring filers to disclose use of generative AI to compose or draft any paper presented for filing. It would require an attestation that citations were human-verified with traditional sources and that the paper was checked for accuracy.","title":"Notice of Proposed Amendments to Local Rules","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-12-08","url":"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txnd-kacsmaryk-2023-generative-ai-certification","issuedDate":"2023-11-27","judge":"Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk","keyProvisions":["Attorneys must certify compliance with Judge Kacsmaryk’s judge-specific requirements.","The AI clause requires either no GenAI drafting or human accuracy checking before submission.","The certificate states counsel remain responsible under attorney-discipline rules."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txnd-kacsmaryk-2023-generative-ai-certification","recordId":"us-txnd-kacsmaryk-2023-generative-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txnd-kacsmaryk-2023-generative-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas — Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Texas — Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements for Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (primary, uscourts-judge-page)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:10.162886+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk":"ee697ab2a48bb2ce6263cda6a9a5b7f4ba8c8f6216354291727118a6dd45d3b0"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Kacsmaryk’s certificate requires attorneys appearing before him to certify compliance with judge-specific requirements. It contains the same generative-AI attestation model as Judge Starr’s form, requiring no AI drafting or human review of any AI-drafted language, citations, paraphrases, and legal analysis.","title":"Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements for Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-11-27","url":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"Colorado Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge","courtLevel":"state","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"judgment-guidance","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-co-people-v-crabill-discipline","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Not reading or verifying AI-generated citations before filing violated Colo. RPC 1.1 and 1.3","Failing to alert the court or withdraw the motion after discovering the citations were fictitious violated Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1)","Falsely attributing the errors to a legal intern violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c)","Sanction: suspension of one year and one day, ninety days active, remainder stayed on two years' probation"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-co-people-v-crabill-discipline"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-co-people-v-crabill-discipline","publisherRequirements":["verification","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["other","verification"],"scope":"Colorado Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Stipulation to discipline (PDF)","primary":false,"url":"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:38.297032+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf":"0c6f57e95f41e69111e2d8af179bef22f7ef375de48cb4b285c9b14a6604ad08"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf","state":"Colorado","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Zachariah Crabill for one year and one day, with ninety days served, after he filed ChatGPT-generated citations without reading them, failed to correct the record and blamed a legal intern. Violations found of Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c).","title":"People v. Zachariah C. Crabill, 23PDJ067 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 22 Nov 2023)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Approved by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge","date":"2023-11-22","url":"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf","version":"Stipulation to discipline"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["all"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-hid-court-2023-unverified-sources","issuedDate":"2023-11-14","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI platforms such as ChatGPT or Bard are included within unverified sources.","Counsel or pro se parties submitting material generated by an unverified source must file a concurrent declaration.","The declaration must be captioned Reliance on Unverified Source.","The declaration must advise the court of reliance and verify that material is not fictitious.","No declaration is required if all sources can be located on Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, or similar basic research tools."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"hid-court-2023-unverified-sources","recordId":"us-hid-court-2023-unverified-sources"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-hid-court-2023-unverified-sources","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"District of Hawaii — General Order 23-1: In Re Use of Unverified Sources (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:22.735087+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf":"df03f1f6346b4ea0eb9538704a28d927651e5666b844159ac112fbd7e508f465"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf","state":"Hawaii","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"District of Hawaii General Order 23-1 addresses filings generated by AI platforms and other unverified sources. Counsel and pro se parties submitting such material must file a concurrent declaration identifying reliance on unverified sources and verifying that the material is not fictitious.","title":"General Order 23-1: In Re Use of Unverified Sources","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-11-14","url":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-mi-judicial-ethics-opinion-ji-155","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Technology competence is an ethical responsibility for all attorneys in Michigan","Judges must assess potential algorithmic bias before relying on AI tools","Judges must document their reasoning when using AI on the record","Judges must distinguish between AI informing a decision and AI deciding a matter","Judges must recognise due-process obligations where AI tools lack transparency"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-mi-judicial-ethics-opinion-ji-155"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mi-judicial-ethics-opinion-ji-155","publisherRequirements":["competence","supervision","disclosure"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","other"],"scope":"State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"SBM Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155","primary":false,"url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:49.680486+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155":"cd2ca52ae7e537e8ad261a139312c4eb21f8a4f8d2910a04f42b0e47b8d840dd"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155","state":"Michigan","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"One of the earliest US judicial ethics opinions on AI. JI-155 treats technology competence as an ethical duty, requires judges to assess algorithmic bias before relying on AI, to document AI use in their reasoning on the record, and to keep decision-making human, with due-process concerns where AI is opaque.","title":"State Bar of Michigan Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155: judicial use of artificial intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Approved 27 October 2023; published 8 November 2023","date":"2023-10-27","url":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155","version":"JI-155"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":false},"appliesTo":["judges"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission","courtLevel":"professional-guidance","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"ethics-opinion","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22","issuedDate":null,"judge":null,"keyProvisions":["A judge may use AI for research purposes but may not use it to decide the outcome of a case","The use of AI in drafting opinions or orders should be done with extreme caution because of built-in or perceived bias","AI is analogous to a law clerk: the judge must decide the ruling, direct the tool accordingly, and review the final draft for current law and accuracy","Responsibility for the finished product rests solely with the judge — 'AI made me do it' is no defence","Judges must research an AI product's data handling and refrain from inputting information that may be retained or disclosed, especially in juvenile and abuse-and-neglect matters","Plagiarism and attribution are additional concerns when drafting with AI"],"lastChecked":"2026-09-04","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-04","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22","publisherRequirements":["prohibition","verification","confidentiality","competence"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","other","prohibition","verification"],"scope":"West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (official PDF)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:33:21.788095+00:00","reviewRequired":true,"sourceUrls":["https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf"],"status":"BASELINED","textHashes":{"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf":"c69cc1dd717a9d3645b788351ef3e2748f5be66c741e6521357729ec1be302a4"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf","state":"West Virginia","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Answering an inquiry about judges' use of AI, the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission applied Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4(B), 2.5(A) and 2.7 and concluded that a judge may use AI for research but not to decide a case's outcome, and that drafting opinions or orders with AI demands extreme caution.","title":"JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (judicial use of artificial intelligence)","verificationLabel":"REVIEW_REQUIRED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":"Initial publication","date":"2023-10-13","url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma","courtLevel":"federal-magistrate","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-oked-robertson-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":"2023-09-27","judge":"Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI in document preparation must disclose use in the document.","The document must identify the specific AI tool used.","The filer must certify accuracy of AI-drafted portions, including citations and legal authority."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"oked-robertson-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-oked-robertson-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-oked-robertson-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma — Judge Jason A. Robertson","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Eastern District of Oklahoma — Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:01.753059+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf":"c3cc6cdca5f212a52cec3a9b34ec30f82df00a920c86087d93766cc0c7aab68d"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf","state":"Oklahoma","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Magistrate Judge Robertson’s standing order requires parties using generative AI in preparing documents for filing to disclose that use in the document, identify the specific tool, and certify that AI-drafted portions have been checked for accuracy, including citations and legal authority.","title":"Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-09-27","url":"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["civil","criminal"],"court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma","courtLevel":"federal-district","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-okwd-palk-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Chief Judge Scott L. Palk","keyProvisions":["Any party using generative AI in document preparation must disclose use in the document.","The document must identify the specific AI tool used.","The filer must certify accuracy of AI-drafted portions, including citations and legal authority."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"okwd-palk-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","recordId":"us-okwd-palk-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-okwd-palk-2023-generative-ai-disclosure-certification","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma — Judge Scott L. Palk","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Western District of Oklahoma — Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:02.965809+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf":"d4dfd10ec508b134b01260f30d152881bac7e99e1b66e9217971d8088c812197"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf","state":"Oklahoma","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Chief Judge Palk’s standing order requires any party who uses generative AI to prepare documents for filing to disclose that use in the document, identify the specific AI tool, and certify that the AI-drafted portions were checked for accuracy, including citations and legal authority.","title":"Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-09-01","url":"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma","courtLevel":"federal-bankruptcy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2023-09-01","id":"us-okwb-court-2023-generative-ai-pleadings-order","issuedDate":"2023-07-25","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["AI-drafted documents must be accompanied by an attestation.","The attestation must identify the program and the specific AI-generated portions.","The attestation must certify accuracy checking and no unauthorized confidential disclosure."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"okwb-court-2023-generative-ai-pleadings-order","recordId":"us-okwb-court-2023-generative-ai-pleadings-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-okwb-court-2023-generative-ai-pleadings-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","confidentiality","disclosure","verification"],"scope":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Western District of Oklahoma — General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:02.247075+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf":"86382a7e36b2c45ca565b8a4c26971c35e1db46feb218ef528ab4830eb381e02"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf","state":"Oklahoma","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Western District of Oklahoma Bankruptcy Court requires an attestation for any filed document drafted with generative AI. The attestation must identify the tool and specific text portions, certify that the document was checked by reliable means, and certify that no confidential information was disclosed to unauthorized parties.","title":"General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-07-25","url":"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas","courtLevel":"federal-bankruptcy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-txnb-court-2023-pleadings-using-generative-ai","issuedDate":"2023-06-21","judge":null,"keyProvisions":["Any AI-drafted pleading or paper must be verified for accuracy.","Verification must use print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.","Failure may lead to Rule 9011 sanctions."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"txnb-court-2023-pleadings-using-generative-ai","recordId":"us-txnb-court-2023-pleadings-using-generative-ai"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-txnb-court-2023-pleadings-using-generative-ai","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Northern District of Texas — General Order 2023-03: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:09.887157+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf":"17ebf77ef198d4ba8df8dd24dc25d24a8b402a9c1a5faa3f7397e7197af26dc4"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf","state":"Texas","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"The Northern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court’s General Order 2023-03 addresses pleadings or other papers drafted with generative AI. It requires filers to verify that AI-generated language was checked for accuracy by reliable non-AI means and warns that noncompliance may lead to Bankruptcy Rule 9011 sanctions.","title":"General Order 2023-03: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-06-21","url":"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["civil"],"court":"United States Court of International Trade","courtLevel":"federal-specialty","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":null,"id":"us-cit-vaden-2023-artificial-intelligence","issuedDate":"2023-06-08","judge":"Stephen Alexander Vaden","keyProvisions":["Applies to submissions in cases assigned to Judge Vaden containing text drafted with generative AI based on natural language prompts.","Names ChatGPT and Google Bard as examples of covered generative AI programs.","Requires a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portions of text drafted with it.","Requires certification that use of the program did not disclose confidential or business proprietary information to unauthorized parties.","Allows any party to seek relief under statute or USCIT rules after the notice is filed."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-06","practiceNotes":[],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":"cit-vaden-2023-artificial-intelligence","recordId":"us-cit-vaden-2023-artificial-intelligence"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-06","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-cit-vaden-2023-artificial-intelligence","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","confidentiality"],"publisherVerified":false,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["confidentiality","disclosure"],"scope":"United States Court of International Trade — Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"United States Court of International Trade — Order on Artificial Intelligence (primary, court-pdf)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf"},{"label":"SafeLegalAI us-court-ai-orders dataset row (coding, text excerpt, provenance)","primary":false,"url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders/blob/main/data/orders.jsonl"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:34:34.168847+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf":"be19151d40302a9f696e30ec5a21b38ce353ae6b26c14cb7e4921f339356428e"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf","state":null,"status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Publisher-reported; current applicability not independently established","summary":"Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden of the Court of International Trade requires any party filing AI-drafted text in his cases to provide a notice identifying the generative AI program and the specific drafted portions, and to certify that no confidential or business proprietary information was disclosed to an unauthorized party.","title":"Order on Artificial Intelligence","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-06-08","url":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"discloseUse":true,"generationEligible":true,"noUseCertificate":false,"signatories":"Filing attorney or self-represented party","trigger":"AI used in preparation of a filed paper","verifyLawAndRecordCitations":true},"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Date shown in reviewed primary source"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2023-06-06","id":"us-ed-pa-baylson-ai-standing-order","issuedDate":"2023-06-06","judge":"Michael M. Baylson","keyProvisions":["For cases assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson, an attorney or self-represented party using AI in preparation of a filed paper must disclose that use in a clear factual statement and certify verification of every citation to law or the record.","The order says AI, not only generative AI.","No blanket district-wide duty or no-use certificate is inferred."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["The order says AI, not only generative AI.","No blanket district-wide duty or no-use certificate is inferred."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Standing order, operative paragraph","sha256":"1884398bd99f9634f19e03a0898532fde007de40b36f8e88e84326bca279b4ed","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf"},"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-ed-pa-baylson-ai-standing-order"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-16","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-ed-pa-baylson-ai-standing-order","publisherRequirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"scope":"Cases assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson; filed complaints, answers, motions, briefs and other papers.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf"},{"label":"E.D. Pa. — Judge Michael M. Baylson page","primary":true,"url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges/michael-m-baylson"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:02.400872+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges/michael-m-baylson","https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges/michael-m-baylson":"f531e050a0bd95118fd031573a3d0f08cf59e7bbec3639693a00c25b2545dae5","https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf":"3202a1855c6ec8471d5dfbebf81288c2dbe60272e30b3ce1fa0f6b885e65c6b6"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"For cases assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson, an attorney or self-represented party using AI in preparation of a filed paper must disclose that use in a clear factual statement and certify verification of every citation to law or the record.","title":"Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-06-06","url":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":null,"appliesTo":["lawyers","litigants"],"caseTypes":[],"court":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Brantley Starr","courtLevel":"federal","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Publisher-reported if present","issuedDate":"Publisher-reported if present"},"documentType":"standing-order","effectiveDate":"2023-05-30","id":"us-nd-tex-starr-ai-certification","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Brantley Starr","keyProvisions":["Potentially superseded. Do not generate or file the historical certificate from this imported record.","Re-open Judge Starr's current requirements and N.D. Texas Civil Rule 7.2(f)/Criminal Rule 47.2(e).","Both direct current-page requests returned 404 on 2026-11-01; the conflict is retained rather than hidden."],"lastChecked":"2026-09-16","practiceNotes":["Potentially superseded. Do not generate or file the historical certificate from this imported record.","Re-open Judge Starr's current requirements and N.D. Texas Civil Rule 7.2(f)/Criminal Rule 47.2(e).","Both direct current-page requests returned 404 on 2026-11-01; the conflict is retained rather than hidden."],"primaryReview":null,"provenance":{"dataset":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","metadataEnrichment":null,"recordId":"us-nd-tex-starr-ai-certification"},"publisherLastChecked":"2026-09-16","publisherRecordUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-federal/us-nd-tex-starr-ai-certification","publisherRequirements":["certification","verification"],"publisherVerified":true,"reportedStatus":"in-force","requirements":["certification","verification"],"scope":"United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Brantley Starr","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"N.D. Tex. — Judge Brantley Starr judge-specific requirements","primary":false,"url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20230601000000/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CertReStarrJSR.doc"},{"label":"Current judge page — retrieval conflict (404)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/node/12039"},{"label":"Current civil rules — retrieval conflict (404)","primary":true,"url":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:12.057485+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules","https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/node/12039"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules":"5c258339c55d3a976715a4edd325e5f4e3a198a76fc4b54290c48af156a92f45","https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/node/12039":"50cefdd15433dfe265676d79f389ba18a456549e3179d400e9456f2535e5e662"}},"sourcePublisher":"SafeLegalAI","sourceUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20230601000000/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CertReStarrJSR.doc","state":"Texas","status":"unknown","statusBasis":"Current-status conflict: official search-index text reports separate certification no longer required; direct current-page retrieval returned 404","summary":"Historical Judge Starr certification record. Current indexed official guidance says the separate certification is no longer required after district rules were adopted, but the current page could not be retrieved directly during this review. Do not use the historical certificate as a current requirement.","title":"Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Brantley Starr)","verificationLabel":"PUBLISHER_REPORTED","versions":[{"archiveUrl":null,"basis":"Publisher-reported history","changes":null,"date":"2023-05-30","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20230601000000/https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CertReStarrJSR.doc","version":"Original"}]},{"actionProfile":{"generationEligible":true,"identifyPortions":true,"identifyTool":true,"noUseCertificate":false,"trigger":"Generative AI used to prepare a document for filing","verifyAllAIPortions":true,"verifyCitations":true},"appliesTo":["lawyers","parties"],"caseTypes":["bankruptcy"],"court":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania","courtLevel":"federal-bankruptcy","dateProvenance":{"effectiveDate":"Not stated in source","issuedDate":"Not stated in source"},"documentType":"practice-direction","effectiveDate":null,"id":"courtscan-pamb-conway-generative-ai","issuedDate":null,"judge":"Mark J. Conway","keyProvisions":["A party using generative AI to prepare a document in a matter before Judge Mark J. Conway must include a Certificate of Use identifying the tool and AI-prepared portions, and certify human accuracy checking, including citations and authority.","The current judicial page does not supply an issue or effective date for this text."],"lastChecked":"2026-11-01","practiceNotes":["The current judicial page does not supply an issue or effective date for this text."],"primaryReview":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01","httpStatus":200,"method":"DIRECT_RETRIEVAL_AND_TEXT_REVIEW","resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway","scope":"Text and scope of the identified source; not docket-specific legal advice or exhaustive supersession search","section":"Use of Generative AI tab","sha256":"a591450a1aaa47ab712486afa4f9c1e2e827441d03c6767cd84558cc49c7af72","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway"},"provenance":{"dataset":"CourtScan primary-source addition","license":"U.S. federal court source"},"publisherLastChecked":null,"publisherRecordUrl":null,"publisherRequirements":[],"publisherVerified":null,"reportedStatus":null,"requirements":["disclosure","certification","verification"],"scope":"Documents in matters pending before Judge Mark J. Conway; represented and self-represented parties.","sourceExcerpt":null,"sourceLinks":[{"label":"Primary source reviewed by CourtScan","primary":true,"url":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway"}],"sourceMonitoring":{"checkedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:06.038136+00:00","reviewRequired":false,"sourceUrls":["https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway"],"status":"UNCHANGED","textHashes":{"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway":"2fc42051cab127871ab7b46879442445792d6275c7032d042b6a845b97d69fe9"}},"sourcePublisher":"U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway","state":"Pennsylvania","status":"in-force","statusBasis":"Primary source text reviewed on 2026-11-01; check later and case-specific orders","summary":"A party using generative AI to prepare a document in a matter before Judge Mark J. Conway must include a Certificate of Use identifying the tool and AI-prepared portions, and certify human accuracy checking, including citations and authority.","title":"Use of Generative AI — Judge Mark J. Conway","verificationLabel":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED","versions":[]}],"schema":"COURTSCAN-RULE-INDEX/1","sources":[{"canonicalUrl":"https://safelegalai.com/regulation/documents","license":"CC BY 4.0","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","name":"SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Documents","sha256":"d8f304876370fb86b3b21ce376dc2c74c76740302f331c737c5b4abe4da9602f","snapshotDate":"2026-10-07","url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/legal-ai-regulation-documents"},{"license":"CC BY 4.0","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","name":"SafeLegalAI US Court AI Orders","role":"Metadata enrichment where official-source URL matched uniquely","sha256":"320ff8ddabaeab585b74430b980083b0712c10631d50bd0e30dd7639a10c419b","url":"https://github.com/SafeLegalAI/us-court-ai-orders"},{"date":"2026-11-01","name":"CourtScan primary-source review","role":"Eight directly retrieved and text-reviewed anchors; one unresolved current-source conflict"}],"verificationStatement":"PRIMARY_SOURCE_REVIEWED means the named text was read on the shown date; it does not promise exhaustive supersession checking. PUBLISHER_REPORTED means classifications, summaries, status and dates are imported research leads, not CourtScan-confirmed obligations."}