Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
D. Ariz -- Judge Krissa M. Lanham	10/15/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Ghadimi v. Ariz. Bank &Trust, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203084 (D. Ariz Oct. 15, 2025), the court found that the pro se plaintiff’s filings contained incorrect citations that may be the result of GenAI. The court warned that in the future “filing documents with fictitious cases will subject [the pro se plaintiff] to sanctions under Rule 11.”
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
D. Ariz. – Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus	8/14/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Mavy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157358 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2025), the plaintiff’s attorney retained an “attorney contract writer” to draft the opening brief to the Social Security Administration. During the drafting process, the plaintiff’s firm flagged for the contract writer that courts in “every jurisdiction” are “cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence,” and the contract writer in fact acknowledged receipt of this message. However, “the majority of authorities cited [in the plaintiff’s opening brief] were either fabricated, misleading, or unsupported,” an outcome the court described as “egregious.” In response to the court’s order to show cause, the plaintiff’s attorney accepted “full responsibility for all filings submitted in this matter” and admitted that “several case citations” were inaccurate but were not knowingly included. Instead of imposing monetary penalties, the court imposed the following sanctions as part of “deterrence”: (i) removing plaintiff’s counsel’s pro hac vice status; (ii) striking the plaintiff’s opening brief; (iii) serving a copy of this order on the plaintiff and affording plaintiff the ability to self-represent or retain new counsel; (iv) writing letters to the three judges “to whom [plaintiff’s counsel] attributed fictitious cases”; (v) requiring plaintiff’s attorney to send a copy of this order to every judge assigned to any case in which the attorney is counsel of record; and (vi) ordering the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this order on the Washington State Bar Association. Magistrate Judge Bachus admonished plaintiff’s counsel for failing to both supervise the drafting attorney and carefully review a brief to which she affixed her signature. As a final matter, the court highlighted how plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to identify and rectify her hallucinated citations in response to the order to show cause was erroneous, as certain hallucinated cases were not included in the “citation correction table,” and certain quoted language was improperly attributed. This, according to Magistrate Judge Bachus, fell short of attorneys’ duties of candor to the court.
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
D. Ariz. - Judge James A. Soto	12/1/2023	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	This is an exemplar of a case-specific order in the same format as orders issued by Judge Soto in other cases. See, e.g., Cowan v. Board of Immigration Appeals, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-JAS, Dkt. No. 15. Although the order abbreviates “generative AI” as “AI,” the order is clear that it specifically governs filings drafted using generative AI. It requires parties to identify both the tool used and which portion(s) of the filings were drafted using gen AI, and to submit a certification that the work product was verified as accurate.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting

Contacts