| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| Pa. Sup. Ct. Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel | 12/8/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Effective December 8, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel governs court personnel’s use of GenAI tools and provides insight for parties on how to approach the use of GenAI. The policies define GenAI as an all-encompassing term for “algorithms and/or computer processes that use artificial intelligence to generate text, audio, or images based on user prompts.” Before any GenAI tool is used, it must first be approved by court leadership who ensure that the tool will keep information “confidential and privileged.” Court personnel must, however, presume that GenAI inputs will not be treated as confidential and privileged and remain aware of GenAI’s “capabilities and limitations,” including hallucinations, biases, and inaccuracies. The court welcomes GenAI use by its personnel for, among other things, document summaries, preliminary legal research, and drafts and edits of their own work. Ultimately, the GenAI user remains responsible for the output’s completeness and accuracy. |
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab | 11/5/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Manivannan v. County of Centre, Pennsylvania, Case No. 4:21-cv-01359 (M.D. Penn. Nov. 5, 2025), Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab issued an order requiring counsel and pro se litigants to disclose and certify the use of GenAI “in the preparation of a document.” The certification and disclosure require the party to identify the specific GenAI tool used, the portions of the filing prepared by GenAI, and that a person has checked the accuracy of the portions of the filing prepared by the GenAI tool, including all citations and legal authority. The order also reminds parties of their ethical and professional obligations and cites the “Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence.” Lastly, the order states that failure to comply may result in sanctions. Although this order is case-specific, it may be indicative of future similar orders by Magistrate Judge Schwab. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Penn. – Judge Wendy Beetlestone | 9/19/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Bryant v. Pottsgrove School District, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184640 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 19, 2025), the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss various claims brought by the pro se plaintiff. Though not dispositive to the outcome, the court observed in a footnote that it was a “remarkable feat” for a pro se litigant to have filed her response to defendants’ motion to dismiss “just two days later,” stating that such a feat “strains credulity.” Although the court did not point to any hallucinations or fictitious citations, it reiterated that pro se litigants must comply with all relevant court rules and orders. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Judge Karoline Mehalchick | 8/28/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167299 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025), the pro se plaintiff included a hallucinated citation in his objection to Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab’s order recommending the dismissal of his complaint. In response to the court’s order to show cause, the plaintiff admitted that the citation “may have been generated and/or relied upon content produced with the assistance of [GenAI] tools” when drafting the objection, and that he meant to cite a different, real case. However, the quote attributed to the hallucinated citation still could not be found in the newly included case. Judge Mehalchick ultimately imposed a $1,000 penalty on the pro se plaintiff for violating both the Court’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the case was only assigned to Judge Mehalchick after the objection was filed, Judge Mehalchick ruled that the pro se plaintiff was still required to comply with her standing order on GenAI, which requires parties to submit a certification that (i) identifies the AI tool used in connection with the filing and the portions of the filing drafted with AI and (ii) certifies that all authorities are accurate. Further, because the plaintiff is a former attorney with “substantial legal training,” the court held him “to a higher standard than pro se litigants with no legal expertise” and noted that he should have been aware of Rule 11 obligations as a filing party. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Judge Daryl F. Bloom | 7/21/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In the court’s order dismissing the pro se plaintiffs’ amended complaint in Rotharmel v. Dauphin Cnty. Child. & Youth Servs., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138723 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2025), the court discussed a letter filed on behalf of and signed by the plaintiffs but was allegedly from “an elite law firm representing the Rotharmels in this matter.” The court concluded that the letter was generated by Callidus AI, an “AI-generated legal research website,” and cautioned the plaintiffs about misrepresenting their status of representation before the court. As such, the court cautioned that if the plaintiffs did actually retain attorneys, these attorneys are required to enter a notice of appearance. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella | 6/10/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Magistrate Judge Latella’s standing order entitled “Use of Generative AI” requires parties who use GenAI in their filings to disclose (i) the “specific AI tool” used, and (ii) the “portions of the filing prepared by the AI program,” and verify that all AI-generated portions of the filing are accurate. A party’s failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions. Magistrate Judge Latella also directs parties to review the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association’s Joint Formal Opinion regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence that remind parties of their ethical obligations when using AI programs. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Pa. - Judge Michael Baylson | 4/10/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | This standing order refers generally to “Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’)” and requires disclosure if any AI is “used . . . in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper,” and certification that all legal citations were verified as accurate. The use of the phrase “preparation” (as opposed to “filing” or “drafting”) could indicate that disclosure and verification are required when AI tools are used in any part of the preparatory process, including research. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Pa. - Judge Kai N. Scott | 2/27/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Judge Scott’s opinion in Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36454 (Feb. 27, 2025) ordered sanctions against defense counsel for citing hallucinated cases due to their use of AI. The court found that counsel “violated Rule 11(b)(2),” ordered a fine of $2,500 payable to the court, and required the completion of “a one-hour CLE-credited seminar or educational program about artificial intelligence and legal ethics” followed by submission of a certificate of completion. Judge Scott clarified that “There is nothing in Rule 11 that specifically prohibits reliance on AI for research assistance,” emphasizing that the court does not take issue with the use of AI, but rather the attorney’s failure to be “the final auditor for all legal and factual claims contained in their motions.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo | 1/25/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Magistrate Judge Caraballo’s standing order requires that any party appearing pro se or through counsel “who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Caraballo” must include with the document a “Certificate of Use of Generative AI” which discloses “[t]he specific AI tool that was used; [t]he portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and [t]hat a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.” Lastly, the order reminds parties that non-compliance may result in sanctions. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| M.D. Pa. – Judge Mehalchick | 11/1/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Mehalchick's standing order on the "Use of Generative AI" requires any party who uses generative AI in the “preparation” of any court filings to disclose and certify which AI tool was used, the portion of the filings prepared by the tool, and that a person has reviewed the filing for accuracy. The order governs generative AI, noting ChatGPT and Bard as examples, and warns that generative AI may create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations. Lastly, the order reminds parties that non-compliance may result in sanctions and links to a formal opinion by the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations on the ethical issues regarding the use of AI. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Pa. - Judge Leeson | 9/10/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Leeson issued an initial procedural order in Young Et Al v. Daniel Boone Area School District, Docket No. 5:24cv4729, which requires attorneys or pro se litigants “who utilize[] any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed” to disclose and certify “[t]he specific AI tool that was used,” “[t]he portions of the filing prepared by the AI program,” and “[t]hat a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.” The use of the phrase “preparation” (as opposed to “drafting”) could indicate disclosure and verification are required when Gen AI tools are used in any part of the preparatory process, including research. Additionally, the order cautions that failure to comply may result in sanctions and directs parties to review findings from the “Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence.” |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Pa. – Judge Hodge | 5/13/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Hodge’s standing order reminds counsel or pro se litigants that the use of Gen AI in connection with filing or discovery must comply with Rules 11(b) and 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule, including all applicable ethical rules. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| M.D. PA – Judge Mehalchick | 8/19/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Mehalchick issued a civil practice order in a recent case (Marinelli v. Aspen Properties Group, LLC, Case No. 3:24-CV-574, Dkt. No. 24) which requires any party who uses generative AI in the “preparation” of any court filings to disclose and certify which AI tool was used, the portion of the filings prepared by the tool, and that a person has reviewed the filing for accuracy. The order governs generative AI, noting ChatGPT and Bard as examples, and warns that generative AI may create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations. Lastly, the order reminds parties that non-compliance may result in sanctions and links to a formal opinion by the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations on the ethical issues regarding the use of AI. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Pa. - Judge Gene Pratter | 10/25/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | These pretrial and trial procedures contain a rule which applies specifically to the use of generative AI. The rule requires both disclosure that generative AI was used and certification that all legal citations were verified as accurate when generative AI tools are used “in the preparation of” any document filed with the court. The use of the phrase “preparation” (as opposed to “filing” or “drafting”) could indicate disclosure and verification are required when generative AI tools are used in any part of the preparatory process, including research. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Pennsylvania
Jump to:
