Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
Delaware Court of Chancery – Senior Magistrate Selena E. Molina	11/21/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Gupta v. Safko et al., No. CV 2024-1296-SEM, 2025 WL 3269046, at *1 (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 2025), the court denied defendants’ request that pro plaintiff should be sanctioned. Although the court concluded that the plaintiff’s filings “do appear to have been generated through GenAI,” because of his pro se status and the fact that there was no “clear showing” of hallucinations or “glaring” misrepresentations, the court ultimately declined to impose sanctions. Senior Magistrate Molina did, however, order that the plaintiff must not only “ensure every future filing” is accurate, but also “certify any future use of GenAI” to the court by identifying what GenAI tool was used and how, and that it was reviewed for accuracy.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
Del. Court of Ch. – Magistrate Judge David Hume, IV	8/26/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In the case In the Matter of the Liquidation of United Contractors Insurance Company, Inc., A Risk Retention Group, No. 8802-DH (Del. Ch. Aug. 26, 2025), the creditor filed a motion and a notice, both of which “cite false legal authority and/or miscite the legal authority.” As a result, Magistrate Judge Hume ordered both parties—should they use GenAI to prepare future filings—to file a sworn certification that identifies the GenAI tool used to assist with drafting, identifies the specific portions of the filing that were drafted with GenAI, and confirms that all GenAI-generated material is accurate. Should the parties fail to file this certification, they could face sanctions from the court.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
Del. Ch. – Magistrate Judge Loren Mitchell	7/30/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Williams v. SETC Pros, LLC, No. 2025-0799-LM (Del. Ch. July 30, 2025), the pro se plaintiff included citations to non-existent caselaw in his motion for a temporary restraining order, which the defendant presumed were generated by GenAI. In response, the plaintiff acknowledged his unsophistication with respect to legal research and asserted his good-faith belief that the cited sources were accurate. Magistrate Judge Mitchell declined to impose sanctions but ordered the plaintiff to include a sworn declaration to accompany any future filings prepared with GenAI that identifies the GenAI tool, highlights the specific portions of the filing prepared by GenAI, and confirms that the GenAI-created content is accurate.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
Court of Chancery of Delaware – Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will	4/4/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc. (Court of Chancery of Delaware), Vice Chancellor Will issued an order denying a pro se petitioner’s motion with prejudice because the petitioner “had [not] been forthright” about his misuse of GenAI in his filing, warning that failure to comply with the certification and disclosure requirements could result in sanctions, monetary penalties, or full dismissal. The court then required that all of petitioner’s future filings be accompanied by a GenAI certification and a sworn statement that discloses the use of GenAI in the preparation of a filing, identifies the “GenAI tool, model, or platform used,” specifies the “pages, paragraphs, and/or sections of the court filing that were created using GenAI,” and confirms that the filing has “undergone a human review for accuracy and completeness,” including accuracy of citations. Vice Chancellor Will’s opinion in the same case makes clear that although “the use of GenAI in legal work is not inherently problematic” and may even “benefit litigants and courts alike” by “lower[ing] barriers to justice,” it nonetheless carries “significant risks” if used carelessly.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
New Castle County Superior Court, DE – Judge Danielle J. Brennan	3/12/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman P.A., N24C-10-001 Delaware Superior Court (New Castle County) (Mar. 12, 2025), the Court ordered the parties to certify if Gen AI was used in the creation of any future filings. The Court defines AI as “technology that enables computers or machines to reason, learn, and act in a way that would typically require human intelligence,” and defines gen AI as “AI trained on an existing set of data (which can include text, images, audio or video) with the intent to ‘generate’ new data objects when prompted by a user.” Generative AI creates new data objects contextually in response to user prompts based only on the data on which it has already been trained. The order also requires that Gen AI certifications include a sworn statement acknowledging use of Gen AI, identify the Gen AI platform used, identify the section(s) of the filing for which Gen AI was used, and a statement that all Gen AI has undergone human review for accuracy.
			Requires Disclosure and/or Verification
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting

Contacts