| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| Colorado Court of Appeals – Hon. Elizabeth Beebe Volz | 12/26/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI | In Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 WL 5230126, the Colorado Court of Appeals considered whether sanctions were appropriate for a pro se litigant who relied upon “[GenAI]-generated hallucinations.” When questioned by the court, the pro se litigant admitted to relying on AI in drafting his brief and to failing to verify the false citations. The court advised that “using a [GenAI] tool to draft a legal document can pose serious risks if the user does not thoroughly review the tool’s output.” The court concluded that the fictitious citations “violated [Colorado Appellate Rule] 28(a)(7)(B),” but declined to impose sanctions, citing the litigant’s apology and acceptance of responsibility for the mistake. However, the court did not permit the plaintiff to refile a second, corrected brief. The court concluded by warning that future use of such hallucinations—for both “lawyers and self-represented parties”—may result in sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D. Colo. - Judge S. Kato Crews | 12/1/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Crews has updated his standing orders for civil cases to require that any motion filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12, 56, or 65, or any opposed motion, contain a certification stating whether generative AI was using “in preparing the filing.” Filings must certify either that “no portion of the filing was drafted by AI,” or that any language drafted by AI—even if later edited by a human—was personally reviewed for accuracy and correct citations using traditional legal databases. The court will strike filings that fail to include this certification. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D. Colo - Magistrate Judge Susan Prose | 10/21/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Magistrate Judge Prose’s standing order requires that filings contain a certification regarding either the use or the non-use of GenAI “(such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.) in preparing the filing, including any proposed amended pleadings.” The preparer of the filing must certify that either no portion of the filing was drafted by GenAI or that any language drafted by AI, even if later edited by a human, “was personally reviewed by the filer or another human being for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases and attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited authority.” The order states that the court will strike any filing that does not include a certification. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Colorado
Jump to:
