{ "schema": "COURTSCAN-PRACTICE-GUIDES/1", "generatedAt": "2026-11-01", "editorialNote": "Practical research and drafting aids grounded in the linked primary sources. CourtScan is independent of courts and bar authorities. Court orders, governing professional rules, and case-specific directions control. A completed worksheet records the user's work; it is not a court determination of compliance.", "guides": [ { "id": "identify-the-rulebook", "title": "Start with the right court, judge, and proceeding", "summary": "A rule for one judge or type of proceeding is not a rule for every court. Build the instruction set for the actual filing before choosing disclosure language.", "audience": "Attorneys and litigation teams", "steps": [ "Record the court, division, assigned judge, case number, proceeding type, and document you intend to file.", "Separate federal district civil, criminal, bankruptcy, appellate, and state proceedings. Open the applicable official rulebook.", "Check the court's local rules, general orders, assigned judge's practices, and orders entered in this case.", "Record which provisions cover this document, this filer, and this use of AI. Leave an unresolved match marked unresolved.", "Revisit the instruction set after reassignment, removal, transfer, appeal, or a new case-management order." ], "sources": [ {"title": "U.S. Courts — Comparing Federal & State Courts", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. Courts — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. Courts — Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-appellate-procedure", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Start here", "Jurisdiction", "Scope"] }, { "id": "pre-filing-review", "title": "Run a substantive pre-filing review", "summary": "A disclosure does not cure an inaccurate filing. Review the legal propositions, factual support, requested relief, and applicable filing requirements separately.", "audience": "Filing attorneys", "steps": [ "For federal district civil papers, read Rule 11(a) and (b): signature, reasonable inquiry, proper purpose, legal support, and the qualifications concerning factual support and denials.", "Use the correct regime for the document. Rule 11(d) excludes the discovery materials and motions it identifies; do not treat it as the only review rule.", "Map each material factual statement to the record, declaration, exhibit, or expressly identified basis for further investigation.", "Confirm that the requested relief and cited procedure fit the court and the current posture.", "Complete any applicable AI-specific step, then review the final filing as a whole. Record unresolved issues for the responsible attorney." ], "sources": [ {"title": "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, December 1, 2025 — Rule 11", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf#page=37", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Oregon — Risks Associated With AI Tools", "url": "https://www.orb.uscourts.gov/risks-associated-use-ai-tools-generate-documents-filing-court", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Pre-filing", "Accuracy", "Rule 11"] }, { "id": "verify-authorities", "title": "Verify the authority, not just the link", "summary": "Finding a real case is only the first step. The source must support the proposition for which the filing uses it.", "audience": "Researchers, associates, and supervising attorneys", "steps": [ "Locate the actual opinion, statute, rule, or order in an official source or a reliable legal research service.", "Read the relevant passage and context. Compare the quotation, pinpoint citation, holding, and procedural posture with the draft.", "Check current validity and relevant later history with appropriate research tools; a working URL does not perform this work.", "Confirm jurisdiction, applicability, and whether the authority is binding, persuasive, or distinguishable for your issue.", "Remove or resolve anything that cannot be verified. Record the source and the review actually performed rather than an automatic 'verified' badge." ], "sources": [ {"title": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan — Use of Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/prose/content/infodetails/useofai", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Using AI Tools in Your Case", "url": "https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/using-ai-tools-your-case", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Research", "Citations", "Verification"] }, { "id": "separate-ai-obligations", "title": "Separate disclosure, verification, and certification", "summary": "These are different questions. Disclosure identifies use; verification describes work performed; certification is a representation by the required signer. A restriction on use is a separate issue.", "audience": "Attorneys preparing an AI-related filing statement", "steps": [ "Read the operative verbs and defined AI scope in the actual order, not only the database label.", "Identify what must be disclosed: use, tool, affected portions, or another specified fact.", "Identify the review required and whether the court also requires a written certification of that review.", "Check the required signer, document placement, timing, and any prescribed wording.", "If the applicable instruction restricts a use, resolve that restriction; do not assume adding a disclosure permits the restricted conduct." ], "sources": [ {"title": "Judge Nina Y. Wang — Standing Order Regarding AI Certification, effective December 1, 2025", "url": "https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "Judge Eumi K. Lee — Civil Standing Order, August 31, 2026, section VIII.H", "url": "https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Disclosure", "Certification", "Scope"] }, { "id": "no-ai-branch", "title": "Handle non-use without a false certification", "summary": "Some instructions address both use and non-use. The appropriate branch depends on the actual drafting history and the order's definition of AI.", "audience": "Attorneys and drafting contributors", "steps": [ "Ask all relevant contributors whether covered AI tools assisted the filing. Check what the selected order includes and excludes.", "Do not select non-use merely because a human later edited generated language. Judge Wang's cited order expressly addresses later editing.", "If the drafting history is uncertain, retain 'Not yet established' and investigate before signing a non-use statement.", "Follow any required use/non-use certification and signature requirements. Judge Wang's order is an example requiring certification on every filing and all drafting contributors' signatures.", "Keep this judge-specific example separate from the rules of other courts." ], "sources": [ {"title": "Judge Nina Y. Wang — Standing Order Regarding AI Certification, section A.1", "url": "https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf#page=2", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Non-use", "Drafting", "Signatures"] }, { "id": "confidentiality-review", "title": "Assess client information before using an AI tool", "summary": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 addresses confidentiality risks; it does not make every tool or every use identical. Apply the governing professional rules and the actual service terms.", "audience": "Lawyers selecting or using AI services", "steps": [ "Identify what representation-related information would be submitted and who could access it.", "Review retention, training, access, contractual protections, and the particular tool configuration.", "Determine whether informed consent is required for this use. The opinion identifies risks from certain self-learning tools, not a universal consent checkbox for all AI activity.", "When required, obtain informed consent addressing the relevant benefits and risks before disclosure; generic boilerplate is not the same thing." ], "sources": [ {"title": "ABA Formal Opinion 512, July 29, 2024 — section B", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Confidentiality", "Client information", "Ethics"] }, { "id": "client-communication", "title": "Decide what to discuss with the client", "summary": "Court disclosure and client communication are distinct. ABA Opinion 512 treats communication as fact-specific; governing local professional rules and engagement terms also matter.", "audience": "Responsible attorneys and client relationship partners", "steps": [ "Review the client's instructions and engagement terms concerning AI.", "Answer client questions about AI use accurately.", "Consider the tool's role, significance of the task, information involved, fees, and the client's reasonable expectations.", "Record any required discussion or informed consent accurately. Do not mark consent obtained unless it actually occurred." ], "sources": [ {"title": "ABA Formal Opinion 512, July 29, 2024 — section C", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Client communication", "Consent", "Ethics"] }, { "id": "source-freshness", "title": "Check status and effective date before relying", "summary": "Published, proposed, adopted, effective, amended, and superseded describe different stages. A recent retrieval date alone does not establish that an instruction governs your filing.", "audience": "Attorneys, researchers, and knowledge managers", "steps": [ "Open the issuing authority's current page and the text of the relevant document.", "Record publication, adoption, and effective dates separately where available; leave unknown dates unknown.", "Keep consultation drafts and not-yet-effective provisions out of the current-obligation conclusion.", "Compare amendments and any transition language. Retain the older version as history rather than silently replacing the record.", "If sources conflict or the source cannot be retrieved, flag the uncertainty and resolve it before treating a database summary as controlling." ], "sources": [ {"title": "U.S. Courts — Forms & Rules", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. Courts — Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Updates", "Effective dates", "Research"] }, { "id": "document-the-review", "title": "Keep a useful record of the work actually done", "summary": "A review record helps the team retrace decisions. Its contents and retention must also respect applicable orders, confidentiality, and the firm's policies.", "audience": "Litigation teams and knowledge managers", "steps": [ "Record the matter reference, filing version, applicable source and version, reviewer, date, and unresolved issues.", "Link each important verification entry to the source or record actually examined.", "Check for specific prompt-retention requirements. Judge Lee's cited civil order requires maintaining prompts or inquiries; do not assume that every judge uses the same rule.", "Protect the record and distinguish internal notes from material intended for public filing.", "A timestamp or file hash identifies a saved artifact; it does not establish legal accuracy, professional review, privilege, or judicial approval." ], "sources": [ {"title": "Judge Eumi K. Lee — Civil Standing Order, August 31, 2026, section VIII.H", "url": "https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois — Using GenAI in Your Court Case", "url": "https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?page=GenAI", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Review record", "Retention", "Team workflow"] }, { "id": "team-review", "title": "Assign review responsibility before the filing deadline", "summary": "Delegating drafting does not eliminate supervision. ABA Model Rule 5.1 addresses managerial and supervisory responsibilities; the jurisdiction's adopted rules govern the actual duty.", "audience": "Partners, supervisors, and litigation teams", "steps": [ "Name the responsible attorney and identify the people who drafted, checked authorities, and reviewed factual support.", "Set a handoff that includes the source materials, unresolved questions, and any AI-generated portions requiring attention.", "Require the reviewer to record the review actually performed rather than adopting a software status label.", "Escalate an unresolved ethical or accuracy issue while there is time to avoid or mitigate its consequences.", "Check governing professional rules and any court-required signature arrangements before the responsible lawyer signs." ], "sources": [ {"title": "ABA Model Rule 5.1 — Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_1_responsibilities_of_a_partner_or_supervisory_lawyer/", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "ABA Model Rule 5.1 — Comment", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_1_responsibilities_of_a_partner_or_supervisory_lawyer/comment_on_rule_5_1/", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Supervision", "Team workflow", "Sign-off"] }, { "id": "draft-and-export", "title": "Turn the worksheet into a filing-specific draft", "summary": "An editable export is a drafting aid. Select wording only after establishing the applicable instruction and the facts that the signer can truthfully represent.", "audience": "Attorneys preparing the final document", "steps": [ "Record the court, judge, filing type, relevant order, and whether the selected text is prescribed wording or an editorial draft.", "Complete only applicable fields. Keep unknown facts unresolved rather than filling them with a default assurance.", "Read the complete draft for factual truth and required wording, placement, signers, and scope.", "Keep the internal review worksheet separate from the document intended for filing; include only appropriate information in the filing.", "Review the exported document itself. CourtScan does not sign it, file it, or certify that a court will accept it." ], "sources": [ {"title": "U.S. Courts — Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and explanation of official forms versus Word templates", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-appellate-procedure", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Using AI Tools in Your Case", "url": "https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/using-ai-tools-your-case", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["Drafting", "Export", "Filing"] }, { "id": "no-record-found", "title": "What to do when the search finds no applicable record", "summary": "An empty search is a coverage result, not proof that no requirement exists. Use the court's sources to complete the inquiry.", "audience": "All researchers and filing attorneys", "steps": [ "Check alternate court and judge names and confirm the correct jurisdiction and division.", "Open the official local rules, assigned judge's current practices, and relevant case orders.", "Search for the operative subject as well as the technology name: certifications, accuracy, sources, verification, and filing requirements.", "If the rule remains unclear, identify the precise uncertainty for attorney resolution; use authorized court procedures for any inquiry.", "Keep ordinary accuracy and professional obligations in the review. Do not convert 'not found in CourtScan' into 'AI disclosure is never required.'" ], "sources": [ {"title": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Using AI Tools in Your Case", "url": "https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/using-ai-tools-your-case", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"}, {"title": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois — Using GenAI in Your Court Case", "url": "https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?page=GenAI", "checkedAt": "2026-11-01"} ], "tags": ["No results", "Research", "Coverage"] } ] }