| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| N.C. App. – Judges Allegra K. Collins, Tobias S. Hampson, Christopher A. Freeman | 9/17/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Santree NC. LLC v. Hines, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 589 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025), a panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a pro se defendant’s appeal from a trial court decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiff. The court noted that the defendant’s opening brief contained legal citations which “either do not accurately support Defendant's argument or cite cases that do not exist.” Citing other decisions concerning GenAI hallucinations, the court observed that the “fabrications and miscited cases in Defendant's brief strongly suggest the use of artificial intelligence,” but that regardless of the cause, the defendant’s failure to cite relevant legal authorities constitutes “abandon[ment of] all legal arguments on appeal pursuant to [North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure] 28(b)(6),” and dismissed the appeal. The court did not impose any sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| W.D.N.C. – Judge Kenneth D. Bell | 8/6/2025 | Generative AI | Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | In Mayar v. Department of State, No. 3:25-cv-00499-KDB-DCK, ECF No. 22 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2025), the pro se plaintiffs used AI tools to translate portions of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In response, the defendant moved to strike the plaintiffs’ motion for failing to include a certification on their use of AI tools. The court reminded the defendants that the AI-related certification was prepared to “protect the Court from fictitious and erroneous citations,” not to “be used as a sword to strike the otherwise valid submissions of pro se plaintiffs” who are unfamiliar with the court’s Local Rules and the English language. In fact, the plaintiffs were quick to respond to the defendant’s motion to strike, articulate their reasoning behind the AI tool, and certify that the tool was limited to translation purposes. Ultimately, Judge Bell denied the defendant’s motion to strike and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for unrelated reasons. |
| Cabarrus County Superior Court – Judge McGee | 7/23/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge McGee’s administrative order defines GenAI as a type of AI which can “create new content such as text, images, or audio, based on training data.” It also defines a “deepfake” as “synthetic media where AI creates fake images, videos, and audio recordings.” Based on these definitions, the order guides the use of GenAI in three delineated circumstances. First, the order implores attorneys to understand GenAI and its proper uses, but permits litigants to use GenAI tools “for legal research, drafting documents, and assisting in the discovery process,” provided they do so in a manner “consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure and [the litigant’s] professional responsibilities.” Such use cases do not require disclosure. Second, the order expressly permits litigants to use GenAI to “assist in the discovery process”—in a manner “consistent with Rule 26(g) of the [FRCP]”—although the order reminds counsel of their obligation to “protect confidential information” because some information submitted to an AI tool “may not be held confidentially.” Third, the order requires pre-trial disclosure when GenAI is used in the creation of evidence, as well as pre-trial challenges when a party suspects that “evidence may be a deepfake.” Violations of the order include those permitted under “Rule 11 and Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct and the Court’s inherent authority,” which include penalties up to and including dismissal. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| W.D.N.C. – Judge Reidinger, Judge Whitney, Judge Cogburn Jr., Judge Bell, Judge Conrad Jr., Judge Mullen, and Judge Voorhees | 6/18/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | The Western District of North Carolina’s standing order broadly prohibits any use of “artificial intelligence” in conducting research for the preparation of court filings, except that the order explicitly allows AI that is “embedded in the standard on-line legal research sources Westlaw, Lexus, FastCase, and Bloomberg.” The order also requires certification that every statement and citation to an authority contained in any court filing has been verified for accuracy. The order is not specific to Gen AI, and the exceptions to the AI prohibition only appear to apply to the four named legal research tools and none others. |
| Prohibits Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research |
North Carolina
Jump to:
