| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| 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 | ||||
| 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 Gen AI 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 | ||||
| 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:
