<p>While we are happy to have you contact us by electronic mail, telephone, surface mail or facsimile transmission, merely communicating with Ropes &amp; Gray LLP or a Ropes &amp; Gray lawyer or employee will not create a lawyer-client relationship. Such a relationship will not arise unless and until the firm agrees with you in writing to handle a particular matter. Importantly, unless and until this has occurred, you should not convey to us any information you regard as personal or confidential, because any such information will not be treated by us as confidential or subject to any confidentiality requirements.*</p>
<p>Our Web site (<a href="http://www.ropesgray.com">www.ropesgray.com</a>) offers several opportunities for visitors to register for informational update and alert mailings, events, and for assistance in using our online resources. These registration and sign-up forms are often linked to the Ropes &amp; Gray LLP mailing list and require users to give contact information (such as name and email address). We use this contact information to send users information about our firm and their selected areas of interest when requested or necessary. Users may opt-out of receiving future mailings at any time. Ropes &amp; Gray LLP is the sole owner of information collected on this site. For more information regarding our collection and use of such information, see our Privacy Policy.</p>

This alert should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This alert is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. © 2025 Ropes & Gray LLP

Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
District Court for the District of Columbia – Judge Rudolph Contreras	3/18/2025		Any AI Usage	Judge Contreras warned a pro se plaintiff “against filing briefs with fabricated case citations” in Williams v. Cap. One Bank, N.A., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49256, citing various cases addressing misuse of genAI in legal filings. He dismissed the action with prejudice, stating that the Plaintiff’s inclusion of nonexistent citations “dramatically weakens [plaintiff’s] opposition to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss because he fails to cite to supporting authority.” Although the decision does not use the term “generative AI,” the cases relied upon and the manner in which AI was purportedly used indicate that the court’s ruling is specific to AI used to “draft” legal filings in a manner which results in errors, and is thus likely targeted at gen AI.
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
Federal Trade Commission - Judge Ayoubi	9/13/2024	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Administrative Law Judge Ayoubi has been issuing scheduling orders in administrative cases with a requirement that attorneys or pro se litigants certify that either no portion of the filing was drafted by Gen AI or any portion that was drafted by Gen AI was “checked for accuracy by human attorneys or paralegals using printed legal reporters and/or online legal databases.” See, e.g., In the Matter of Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al. The order also cautioned that any filing that failed to comply with the certification requirement “may be stricken on that ground.”
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting

Washington, D.C.

Contacts