| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| 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 | ||||
| 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:
