| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| Texas Business Court - Court-Wide | 6/1/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Rule 10(c) of the Local Rules of the Texas Business Court permits represented and unrepresented parties to use AI in their filings, but reminds such parties that they remain “independently responsible for the accuracy of all filings” and must comply with existing rules and legal and ethical duties, including Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (which provides for the possibility of sanctions in various circumstances) and Chapters 9 and 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (concerning frivolous filings and sanctions). |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| W.D. Tex. – Judge Xavier Rodriguez | 5/30/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Brenda Hale, No. 5:24-cv-00799-XR (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2025), the court briefly discussed the pro se defendants’ use of “unverified sources” in their briefing in support of their motion for summary judgment. Remarkably, although the court could not locate any of the fictitious cases to which one of the defendants cited, her legal theories were in fact accurate. Instead of imposing sanctions, the court simply cautioned the parties to “double-check” all filings. Judge Rodriguez acknowledged that pro se litigants in particular “may have difficulty coming up with correct legal arguments by themselves.” Regardless, all litigants are cautioned that “[w]hile artificial intelligence can, and will continue to be a useful resource for locating legal authorities, the case citations and conclusions it offers may still be incorrect.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D. Tex. -- Chief Judge Randy Crane | 5/7/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Chief Judge Crane’s district-wide General Order reminds attorneys or pro se parties to check any filings prepared with GenAI platforms for accuracy and that these platforms “should never replace the lawyer’s independent legal judgment.” Further, both attorneys and pro se parties remain subject to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and can face sanctions for the representation of any “factually or legally inaccurate content.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. -- Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle | 5/2/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Wilt v. Dep’t of the Navy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83773, the pro se plaintiff cited two cases in her opposition briefing which “appear to have been created by” GenAI because “[n]either of these cases exist.” . Judge Kernodle refrained from imposing sanctions but reminded the plaintiff that “fabricated citations will not be tolerated,” and that pro se parties are “bound by the Court’s rules and the standards articulated under [Local] Rule 11.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.D. Tex. Magistrate Judge David L. Horan | 4/28/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Willis v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79916, the Court sustained a notice of deficiency against the plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s local civil rule requirement that litigants disclose the use of Gen AI (“AI NOD”). The plaintiff challenged the AI NOD arguing that the local rule deters pro se litigants from “using modern tools” by requiring they be “mocked, ridiculed, and falsely accused,” and criticizing the court for “maligning a citizen’s good-faith efforts without first verifying facts.” The court’s order addressing the argument clarified that the rule does not prohibit the use of GenAI, explaining its reasoning for its conclusion that a particular citation was the product of a GenAI hallucination, and declining to sanction the plaintiff, but reiterating its warning that “the undisclosed use of AI, in violation of the Court's local civil rules and the Court’s orders, will subject that party to sanctions.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. – Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle | 4/1/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Boggess v. Chamness, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61798 (Apr. 1, 2025), the plaintiff objected to a report and recommendation and cited to a fictitious case “likely generated via artificial intelligence” in her briefing. Despite the plaintiff’s pro se status, Judge Kernodle ruled that this violated Rule CV-11(g) of the Eastern District of Texas’s local rules (requiring attorneys to “verify the information that they submit to the court”). Judge Kernodle further reiterated that all parties—whether self-represented or represented by counsel—are subject to the court’s rules and standards, including those governing sanctionable conduct. The court ultimately did not impose sanctions against the plaintiff but described the “false statement of law” as sanctionable, and ultimately overruled the plaintiff’s objections. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. Judge Michael J. Truncal | 3/17/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Norman v. Beaumont Independent School District et al, Docket No. 1:24-cv-00007 (E.D. Tex. Jan 07, 2024), plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion that contained “five quotes that do not exist” and “a case that does not exist.” The Court noted that the counsel had previously been sanctioned for using GenAI that cited non-existent cases (see Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2024 WL 4882651 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024)) but filed the briefings at issue before being sanctioned in the previous case. As a result of those prior sanctions, plaintiff’s counsel “indicated that he has completed two courses on ethical lawyering and the use of AI” and that now “his process for legal writing is different than what it was when he submitted the briefings and that he has learned from his courses.” Nevertheless, the Court found that plaintiff’s counsel “failed to verify the existence of the quotations and citations made in his responsive briefings in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and Local Rules AT-3(b) and (m).” Further, the Court found that plaintiff’s counsel “failed to take corrective action after already being sanctioned . . . for his use of artificial intelligence” and made a false statement of material fact “when he misrepresented to the Court that Defendants did not highlight the issues with his misrepresented quotes in their reply brief.” As a result, the Court levied a $2,000 penalty, required counsel to “attend a continuing legal education course, for a minimum of one-hour Texas MCLE credit, on the topic of candor to the court, opposing counsel, and/or a similar matter,” and provide a copy of the order to the plaintiff. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences | ||||
| N.D. Tex. – District Wide | 3/12/2025 |
Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The local rules (Rule 7.2(f)(1)-(3)) require parties to disclose any use of Generative AI (“gen AI”) when preparing briefs on the first page of the brief with the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” The rules allow for (but do not require) judges to require disclosure of specific parts of the brief that were “prepared using [gen AI].” Parties who do not include this disclosure are deemed to be making a certification that gen AI was not used in preparing their briefs. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 109th District Court Texas – Judge John L. Pool | 12/6/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Judge Pool’s order, which notes concerns with reliability and biases of GenAI systems, requires that all self-represented litigants and attorneys “who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research in connection with a case shall before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding” submit a form. This form must certify that all legal analysis, citations, language, quotations, sources, and arguments are verified by a human being before submission to the court and requires both self-represented litigants and attorneys to acknowledge that they will be held responsible and potentially face sanctions for their or their co-counsel’s failure to comply with the order. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. - Judge Marcia A. Crone | 11/25/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214029, the court sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel for “submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations.” Plaintiff’s counsel cited two non-existent cases and various fake quotations that were not in the cited authority. Plaintiff’s counsel admitted “that he used a [GenAI] tool to produce the [brief] and failed to verify the content.” Further, the attorney claimed he “attempted to check the content of the [brief] by using a feature available through Lexis AI [but the] feature failed to flag the issues with the [brief].” The Court found that the plaintiff violated Rule 11 the Eastern District of Texa’s local rules (which advise litigants to verify submissions, including information created by GenAI). The sanctions included a $2,000 penalty, attendance of CLE course on GenAI and the law, and notifying the counsel’s client of the court order. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences | ||||
| 89th District Court – Judge Barnard | 3/27/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Although this standing order’s preamble mentions “generative artificial intelligence,” the substantive section appears to apply to all AI tools, as it requires anyone utilizing “any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting” to submit a certification. The certification itself—which references gen AI—requires an attestation that anything “created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence” is “verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources.” Accordingly, this order could require all parties who use any form of AI to submit an attestation about the use of generative AI, whether or not generative AI was actually used. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D. Texas – Judge Olvera | 2/8/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The local rules require all attorneys appearing before the Court to file a certificate, with their proposed scheduling order, attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by gen AI or any language drafted by gen AI will be checked for accuracy. The Court will strike any filing from a party who fails to file this certificate. The rules also contain a sample certificate. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 30th District Court – Judge McKnight | 3/27/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Although this standing order’s preamble mentions “generative artificial intelligence,” the substantive section appears to apply to all AI tools, as it requires anyone utilizing “any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting” to submit a certification. The certification itself—which references gen AI—requires an attestation that anything “created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence” is “verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources.” Accordingly, this order could require all parties who use any form of AI to submit an attestation about the use of generative AI, whether or not generative AI was actually used. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 78th District Court – Judge Kennedy | 3/27/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Although this standing order’s preamble mentions “generative artificial intelligence,” the substantive section appears to apply to all AI tools, as it requires anyone utilizing “any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting” to submit a certification. The certification itself—which references gen AI—requires an attestation that anything “created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence” is “verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources.” Accordingly, this order could require all parties who use any form of AI to submit an attestation about the use of generative AI, whether or not generative AI was actually used. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Bexar County, TX – Local Rules | 1/9/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The local rules require pleadings to contain a certification that any materials “produced” by generative AI have been verified through “traditional (non-A.I.) legal sources.” While such certification is targeted at the use of generative AI, the requisite verification process seemingly prohibits the use of any AI when evaluating the gen AI-generated content and does not distinguish between AI generally and generative AI. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. - District-Wide | 12/1/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The local rules refer specifically to “generative artificial intelligence,” and caution lawyers that gen AI tools “may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.” The rules remind counsel that users remain responsible for verifying “any computer-generated content” to ensure it complies with the Federal Rules. There are no prohibitions, disclosure requirements, or other limitations on the use of gen AI tools. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| N.D. Tex. - Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | 11/27/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order requires all parties, whether or not they use generative AI, to file a certification attesting either that no filings will be drafted with gen AI, or that any content drafted with gen AI will be checked for accuracy. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| W.D. Tex - Judge Fred Biery | 11/21/2023 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Judge Biery has been issuing orders in cases noting that “[i]n this modern environment of artificial intelligence,” counsel are reminded of their ethical duties to be honest with the court. See, e.g., Montez v. Esparza, Case No. 5:23-cv-01483, Dkt. No. 7. The orders indicate that “signature of counsel” constitutes an affirmation that all filings have been validated for accuracy. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| N.D. Tex. - Bankruptcy | 6/21/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This general standing order is limited to filings drafted using generative artificial intelligence and requires verification that any gen AI-generated language was checked for accuracy. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Tex. 394th Dist. - Judge Roy Ferguson | 6/9/2023 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Although this standing order’s preamble mentions “generative artificial intelligence,” the substantive section appears to apply to all AI tools, as it requires anyone utilizing “any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting” to submit a certification. The certification itself—which references gen AI—requires an attestation that anything “created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence” is “verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources.” Accordingly, this order could require all parties who use any form of AI to submit an attestation about the use of generative AI, whether or not generative AI was actually used. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.D. Tex. - Judge Brantley Starr | 5/30/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order requires all parties, whether or not they use generative AI, to file a certification attesting either that no filings will be drafted with gen AI, or that any content drafted with gen AI will be checked for accuracy. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Texas
Jump to:
