| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| N.D. Tex. – Magistrate Judge Brian McKay | 11/10/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Shelton v. Parkland Health, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221598 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2025), the court entered an order requiring plaintiff’s counsel to show cause whether the court should impose sanctions for GenAI misuse. During the briefing period on the order to show cause the parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a join stipulation of dismissal. However, the court asserted that it retained jurisdiction to resolve the matter of attorney discipline. The court found that plaintiff’s counsel cited multiple cases that “either did not support the legal proposition for which they were used or did not exist at all.” Further, the court found that plaintiff’s counsel also failed follow local rules that require disclosure of GenAI use in the preparation of briefs. Despite these violations by plaintiff’s counsel, the court found that since the matter has been settled, it would not prolong the matter by considering sanctions. The court therefore reprimanded plaintiff’s counsel but did not impose sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D. Tex. Bankr. – Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez | 11/4/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Kheir v. Titan Team LLC (In re Kheir), 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2858, (S.D. Tex. Bankr. Nov. 4, 2025), the court found that the plaintiff’s counsel utilized GenAI to “to manufacture legal authority without verifying the content within such authorities, or the existence of such authorities, in violation of the Southern District of Texas General Order 2025-04.” The court enumerated the significant number of GenAI hallucinations that plaintiff’s counsel incorporated into his response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, and stated that its opinion was issued in part to “remind lawyers that confirming the accuracy of cited caselaw is a basic, routine matter, and something to be expected from a practicing attorney.” The court held a show cause hearing where the plaintiff admitted to providing her attorney with hallucinated cases and plaintiff’s counsel admitted to failing to ensure their accuracy. The court then imposed sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel, which included requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to reimburse defendant’s counsel for its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs, register and obtain “six hours of continuing education from the State Bar of Texas on the use of generative AI in the courts,” and provide a copy of the order to his client. The court also referred plaintiff’s counsel to the chief judge and the State Bar of Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel for possible disciplinary action. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| N.D. Tex. – Judge Ed Kinkeade | 10/29/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Wilson v. Kipp Tex., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214023 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2025), the plaintiff’s counsel disclosed his use of GenAI (specifically ChatGPT) in the response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment “to compare job descriptions” in order to “show similarities between [plaintiff’s] former job and the new role at issue in this case,” and “to analyze two discrete documents.” Counsel admitted that the ChatGPT output regarding the job description comparison was inaccurate and resulted in “11 non-existent statements” related to the actual job description. In imposing sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel (but not the plaintiff herself), the court noted that the attorney violated Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) for failing to include the required disclosure of GenAI within the response brief. Judge Kinkeade similarly found violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for making misrepresentations of fact without any evidentiary support and representing to the court that the quotations were actually “real” and “verbatim.” As a result, the plaintiff’s attorney was ordered to (i) reimburse the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the preparation of the reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, (ii) attend 2 hours of CLE courses about use of AI, and (iii) submit a sworn certification confirming attendance at the CLE courses. The court also sua sponte granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended summary judgment response without AI-generated information. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| Supreme Court of New York, New York County – Judge Anar R. Patel | 10/27/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Shogy Ahmed v. Haytham Ahmed, N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8612, 2025 NY Slip Op 34113(U), (Oct. 27, 2025), defendants cited “an abundance of cases that do not appear to exist” in their opposition to plaintiff’s motion to vacate the court’s decision. The court advised defendants’ counsel to “diligently review the submissions they make to the Court for accuracy” and warned that the failure to do so may warrant sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 419th Judicial District, Travis County, TX – Judge Maya Guerra Gamble | 10/22/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Ma v. Cogdell Law Firm PLLC, No. D-1-GN-25-001604 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Oct. 22, 2025), the plaintiff’s attorney used “WestLaw AI” to initially conduct research for his motion for reconsideration and then turned to “Chat GPT’s Legal GPT” for drafting and “rephrasing.” See Facts Requested By Court at 1 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Sept. 23, 2025). Once ChatGPT produced a revised draft, the attorney did not conduct a cite check to ensure that all citations were accurate before filing the motion. Id. at 2. And, in response to the court’s request for facts leading to the incorrect citations, he admitted to the “negligence” with these AI tools and promised to “personally verify” each citation in future filings. Id. The court ultimately granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions, ordering plaintiff’s counsel to pay $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, striking the motion for reconsideration, and requiring plaintiff’s counsel to submit a letter within 10 days of the order detailing the errors associated with the Westlaw tool and how the attorney will avoid errors in the future. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| E.D. Tex. – Judge Marcia A. Crone | 10/22/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Pete v. Facebook Data Breach, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207658 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2025), the pro se plaintiff included an erroneous citation (which the court stated it “does not know from where Plaintiff got his quoted language”) in his opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motion to transfer. Though the court ultimately granted the motion to transfer, Judge Crone reminded the plaintiff that, “as he should know by now,” he could face sanctions under Local Rule CV-11(g) for including erroneous citations generated by AI. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Tex. -- Judge Michael J. Truncale | 10/14/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Pete v. Abbott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202937 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2025), the plaintiff included a “artificial-intelligence-hallucinated” citation in his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and failed to provide the court with a copy of the decision upon the court’s order to show cause. As the plaintiff claimed he merely misspelled the case name, the court reviewed what the plaintiff to believe the correct case name but found that case to be of a wholly different subject matter and state. In addition to this citation error, the plaintiff included five other AI-generated citations in his response to the court’s order to show cause. The court found that the plaintiff’s response did “nothing but waste more of the Court’s time” and “directly defied a court order.” As a result, the court refused to consider any of the plaintiff’s arguments, denied his motion, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee associated with this action. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| N.D. Tex. – Judge James Wesley Hendrix | 9/15/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Ebem v. Bondi, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179955 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2025), the pro se plaintiff refiled his motion for default judgment as a “Clerks [sic] Entry of Default” and referred to it as an entry of default judgment. In reviewing the filings, the court presumed that the plaintiff’s filings were the product of a GenAI “misapplication” instead of a “deliberate attempt to mislead the Court” given the “liberal use of bolding, italicizing, and emoji bullet points, consistent with AI output formatting.” Judge Hendrix warned the plaintiff of the potential for sanctions and prosecution for perjury should he continue to include false statements in his pleadings notwithstanding his pro se status. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.D. Tex. – Magistrate Judge David L. Horan | 8/28/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Magistrate Judge David L. Horan’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence cautions that while the court is “not opposed to the use of AI” by both represented and pro se parties to assist with filings, there remains a need to independently verify all citations included to comply with Local Rule 7.2(f) and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Horan’s standing order reminds parties that, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(f), any brief prepared with GenAI must contain a header entitled “Use of General Artificial Intelligence” that “discloses the specific parts prepared” using GenAI. Parties who submit hallucinated or false citations could face sanctions given the time opposing parties and the court must spend to “parse through the case names, citations, and points of law to determine which parts, if any, are true.” Magistrate Judge Horan advises attorneys and pro se parties to consult this standing order when proceeding with any GenAI use in connection with a filing. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D. Tex. -- Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo | 7/23/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Elizondo v. City of Laredo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140572 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2025), the court identified multiple citations in the plaintiff’s opposition brief that appeared “fictitious or materially inaccurate.” As a result, the court issued an order to show cause requiring the plaintiff’s counsel to explain why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, the court’s inherent authority, and the S.D. Tex. local rules addressing GenAI use. In the response to the show cause order, the plaintiff’s counsel stated that “his law clerk used generative artificial intelligence tools to produce the case citations” and he “failed to verify their accuracy.” The judge also referenced her local rules, which incorporate the S.D. Texas local rules and explicitly state that the Court “will not accept the excuse that such content was prepared by AI, staff, or others when assessing potential violations of Rule 11 or applicable ethical obligations.” While the Court recognized plaintiff’s attorney’s candid acknowledgment of the problem and contrition, as well as his remediation efforts (including his statement that he has since “implemented new internal policies prohibiting the use of generative AI tools in drafting legal filings and [is] requiring heightened citation review”), the court sanctioned plaintiff’s attorney with a $2,500 monetary penalty, three hours of continuing legal education “in ethics or legal technology, including at least one hour on the use of generative AI in the legal context,” and service of the order on the plaintiff. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| E.D. Tex. – Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell | 7/22/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Wilt v. Whitehouse Indep. Sch. Dist., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166048 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2025), the defendant identified various hallucinated citations in the pro se plaintiff’s opposition brief to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Though the plaintiff acknowledged the questionable nature of her citations in her sur-reply brief, she asked the court to “overlook these ‘misrepresented’ cases.” According to Magistrate Judge Mitchell, because the citations were “fabricated” and “flagrant misrepresentations” of the law, these citations could not be ignored. The court reminded the parties of their responsibilities under Local Rule CV-II(g) to “review and verify any computer-generated content” given the rise of “certain technologies [that] may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.” Although the court declined to impose any sanctions because of the plaintiff’s pro se status, it warned her that, should she continue to cite nonexistent authority in violation of Local Rule CV-II(g), she could face stricken pleadings and filings, “filing restrictions,” claims dismissals, and “monetary penalties.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D. Tex. – Judge John A. Kazen | 6/23/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Section 7 of Judge Kazen’s Court Procedures in Criminal Cases requires pro se litigants and counsel to ensure that any material drafted with assistance from a GenAI tool is “thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission.” This verification requirement coincides with attorneys’ obligations under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct to make truthful legal assertions and maintain their duty of candor to the court. Those who violate this procedure may be subject to sanctions, regardless of whether the filing was prepared by GenAI, staff, or others. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Tex. App (Dallas) -- Judge Nancy Kennedy | 6/12/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC, No. 05-24-00123-CV (Tex. App. –Dallas June 12, 2025), the court sanctioned appellants’ counsel for submitting a legal brief containing citations to four non-existent cases. The court found that, although there was no “intent to deceive,” counsel failed to verify the citations’ accuracy before filing and conceded that the “identified cases could not be located.” The court emphasized that reliance on technology, including AI “does not excuse carelessness or failure to follow professional standards.” As a result, the court ordered the attorney to complete three hours of Texas CLE courses on ethics and five hours on technology (with two such hours being satisfiable by the completion of CLE courses on the ethical use of GenAI), and to pay $2,500 in attorney fees to opposing counsel as a sanction. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| 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 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2025), the plaintiff challenged a notice of deficiency order relating to AI issued by the court 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 clarified that the rule does not prohibit the use of GenAI, explained its reasoning for its conclusion that a particular citation was the product of a GenAI hallucination, and declined to sanction the plaintiff, but reiterated 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 | ||||
| 21st and 335th District Courts, Texas – Judges Carson Campbell and John D. Winkelmann | 3/26/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judges Campbell and Winkelmann’s identical orders, which note concerns with reliability and biases of GenAI systems, require 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 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 – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| 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 – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| 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:
