California | Ropes & Gray LLP

Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
C.D. Cal. – Judge Slaughter	10/4/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Slaughter’s standing order requires any filings containing content created by Gen AI to include a separate declaration “disclosing the use of [generative] artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.”
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
S.D. Cal. – Judge Robinson	10/4/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Robinson’s standing order reminds counsel that Rule 11, and other applicable standards of practice, requires due care in reviewing and filing work product created with the assistance of Gen AI tools. The order specifically states that AI tools are not prohibited, but also reminds counsel that violations of Rule 11 may result in sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action. The order cites various case law to show: (i) that using Gen AI tools may result in misrepresentations and fabrications; (ii) the duties imposed by Rule 11; and, (iii) an example of an attorney who was referred to a grievance panel after a filing a brief with nonexistent cases.
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
N.D. CA – Judge Lee	8/16/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	The order requires any filings containing content created by “ChatGPT or other such generative [AI]” must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy, and that counsel must personally confirm the “accuracy of any research” conducted using generative AI tools. The order warns that failure to comply with this requirement is sanctionable. Notably, the order also requires counsel to maintain records of “all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools” in the event those records become relevant at any point.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Research
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
C.D. Cal. - Judge Oliver	Current as of 5/9/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Oliver’s standing orders require parties using gen AI to “generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing” to submit a separate declaration disclosing the use of gen AI and certifying the review and accuracy of any AI-generated content. This language appears to be specific to the use of gen AI in drafting court filings.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
C.D. Cal. – Judge Blumenfeld	3/1/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Blumenfeld has updated his standing orders for civil cases to require parties using gen AI to “generate any portion of” a court filing, to submit a separately filed document disclosing the use of gen AI and certifying the review and accuracy of any AI-generated content. This language appears to be specific to the use of gen AI in drafting court filings, and does not appear to apply to the use of gen AI for research or other supportive, non-drafting tasks.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
N.D. Cal. - Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín	11/22/2023	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	This standing order requires lawyers to confirm the accuracy of content generated by “ChatGPT or other such tools,” and any submissions “containing AI-generated content” must include certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy. The order also holds counsel responsible for “maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools” in the event that those records become relevant.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
N.D. Cal - Judge Rita F. Lin	11/9/2023	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Lin's standing order requires lawyers to "personally confirm for themselves" the "accuracy of any research" conducted by gen AI, and reminds them that "counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings." The order explicitly does "not prohibit[]" use of gen AI tools, nor does it impose any disclosure or certification requirements upon parties.
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Research
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
N.D. Cal - Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang	7/14/2023	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Judge Kang’s standing order devotes nearly four pages to the topic of AI, starting by noting that gen AI is “distinguishable from other categories of AI,” and as such, although the order tends to refer to “AI,” it explicitly does not apply to more commonplace tools which happen to incorporate “AI” features, including legal research and spellchecking tools, but is instead focused on gen AI. Judge Kang’s order first reminds all litigants to comply with state, federal, and ABA rules and guidelines on the use of AI. Next, he requires disclosure of when documents filed with the court are “created or drafted” using AI (including requirements that counsel maintain records sufficient to identify which portions were drafted by AI), and prohibits the use of “AI-hallucinated” or “fictitious” citations, noting the possibility of sanctions in such cases. Judge Kang’s order also requires disclosure of “AI-generated evidentiary material.” Finally, the order requires that any parties using gen AI “keep[] records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any [] third party AI tools” because of the potential confidentiality and privilege issues that may arise when using AI tools “own[ed] and operate[d]” by “[t]hird parties and non-parties.”
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting