| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| D.N.J. – Judge Jamel K. Semper | 9/30/25 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192947 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2025), the plaintiff proactively filed a “notice of errata” to correct various AI-generated “citation and quotation errors” contained in the briefs in support of his motion for summary judgment. The court ultimately declined to impose any sanctions in this case given the plaintiff’s self-disclosure of GenAI use and promise to take CLE courses on GenAI use. However, Judge Semper reminded the plaintiff’s attorney of his obligations under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that all information contained in filings is accurate, warned of the risk of sanctions for future occurrences of “reli[ance] on AI without proper oversight,” and ultimately declined to consider either plaintiff’s amended briefs or the errata, but instead “treat[ed] any propositions or arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Dist. N.J. – Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte | 9/18/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In OTG N.Y., Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183358 (Dist. N.J.), following an order to show cause, the district court concluded that monetary sanctions were warranted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, where plaintiff’s counsel “cited to nonexistent cases and fabricated legal propositions derived from generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate.” The offending attorney “confirmed that he indeed used AI, which provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his reply brief without verification.” Because of the attorney’s “prompt admission and honest disclosure, apologies to the Court, and assertion that he will immediately implement safeguards against future AI misuse,” the court imposed a sanction “on the lower end of the range” of $3,000. The court also ordered the brief containing the errors to be withdrawn, and directed the attorney to report the court’s sanctions order to both the disciplinary bars of all states in which he is licensed to practice, and to his client. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| D.N.J. – Judge Julien Xavier Neals | 7/23/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In In re CorMedix Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J. July 23, 2025), the defendant’s counsel wrote a letter to Judge Neals regarding the presence of hallucinated citations and misstated quotes in the court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 123. Specifically, counsel’s letter alerted the court to consider “whether amendment or any other action should be taken” given the five cases in which the court’s quoted language could not be found and alleged statements made by the defendants that were not present in the operative complaint. See id. at 1-3. The following day, the court entered a text order admitting that the opinion and order on the motion to dismiss “were entered in error” and flagged that a new opinion and order would be filed. See ECF No. 126. |
| D.N.J. Bankruptcy -- Judge John K. Sherwood | 5/9/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | In In re Risis, No. 24-22714, 2025 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 9, 2025), a pro se party submitted multiple filings which were allegedly “signed by [an artificial intelligence assistant that plaintiff claims to have created] on behalf of the [pro se] Debtor.” Judge Sherwood ruled that “the Bankruptcy Rules do not recognize artificial legal intelligence representatives,” concluding that while the Debtor may “use artificial intelligence to aid in the preparation of pleadings,” Bankruptcy Rule 9011 requires him to “sign, proofread[,] and independently verify every aspect of the materials for accuracy.” The court then denied the pro se litigant’s request to be represented by an “artificial intelligence entity” and denied without prejudice all filings signed by the AI “representative.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| D. NJ - Judge Chesler & Judge Hammer | 1/28/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | This confidentiality order by Judges Chesler and Hammer in Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust v. American General Life Insurance Company limits the use of “AI tools” in relation to Confidential and Attorney’s Eyes Only (“AEO”) materials. Specifically, Section 8 of the order requires written confirmation from the receiving party to the producing party that the AI tool both “restricts receipt and access” of the AEO materials to the receiving party, and also that such materials will either not be made available “to any developers, providers, or operators” of the AI tool, or that any retained AEO material is used by the receiving party solely for the underlying action, and that such data is “securely and permanently erased, following conclusion of the action” or the AI tool is “decommissioned.” The order additionally requires that the AI tool is “stateless” (such that “neither the tool nor any system containing the tool will be modified, improved, or changed” with the use of the AEO materials). If the statelessness of the tool cannot be guaranteed, the AI tool must be “either permanently reset to a default state that existed prior to the receipt of the Confidential and Attorneys’ Eyes Only material or securely deleted in its entirety.” Parties must also certify that all Confidential and AEO material submitted to any AI tools has been destroyed upon case completion. Finally, the order explicitly bans the use of AEO materials with any non-compliant AI tool, indicating ChatGPT as one such example. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D.N.J. - Judge Evelyn Padin | 11/13/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order refers specifically to filings drafted using generative AI, naming several examples of such tools. 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 |
New Jersey
Jump to:
