Pennsylvania | Ropes & Gray LLP

Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
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
E.D. Pa. - Judge Michael Baylson	6/6/2023	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