AI in Court Filings: What Judges Now Require You to Disclose
9/10/20264 min read
AI in Court Filings: What Judges Now Require You to Disclose
Before your next filing, one question can save you a sanctions motion: does this judge, in this court, require you to disclose whether you used AI? There's no national answer. What's emerged instead is a patchwork of standing orders and local rules that range from "certify AI use on every brief" to "we've banned it" to "our existing rules already cover it." Knowing which regime you're in — per court, sometimes per judge — is now part of competent practice.
This is general information, not legal advice.
How we got here
The turning point was Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023), where attorneys filed a brief full of fictitious, AI-generated citations and drew sanctions that made national news. Within weeks, Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued what's widely regarded as the first federal AI standing order, requiring attorneys to certify their use of AI and confirm human verification.
Courts followed quickly. By early 2026, more than two dozen federal district courts had adopted standing orders or local rules addressing AI in filings, and state courts have joined at an accelerating pace. The direction is unmistakable: courts are moving from reactive sanctions after a bad filing to proactive disclosure and verification requirements as a condition of filing.
The three approaches courts are taking
Most orders fall into one of three camps. Identify which one applies to you before you file.
1. Mandatory certification.
The most common model: attorneys must file a certification stating whether AI was used and affirming that a human verified any AI-assisted content. Some judges require you to certify that no portion was AI-drafted, or else identify the AI-drafted portions and confirm human review. Others require certifying that every citation and legal assertion was independently verified. Formats differ — a separate certification page, a cover-page notation, a footnote, or an entry identifying which AI tools were used and where.
2. Restriction or outright prohibition.
Some judges bar AI from the preparation of filings altogether, often with carve-outs for conventional legal-research databases, general internet search, and standard office software. In these courtrooms, using a generative tool the way you might elsewhere can itself violate the order.
3. Reliance on existing duties.
A number of courts — and at least one statewide court system — have declined to add AI-specific disclosure rules, taking the position that existing obligations (candor, no frivolous arguments, the duty of reasonable inquiry) already require human verification of anything filed. No special certification, but no relaxation of your duties either.
Because these vary by individual judge, two matters in the same courthouse can carry different requirements. Treat each judge's standing orders as their own rulebook.
What disclosure actually looks like
Where certification is required, the mechanics matter. Depending on the order, you may need to:
State affirmatively whether generative AI was used in preparing the filing.
Identify the specific AI tools used, and sometimes where in the document.
Certify that a licensed attorney reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content — every case citation, statutory reference, and factual claim.
Maintain records of the AI-assisted portions in case the court asks to see them.
A template certification often reads, in substance: the undersigned certifies whether generative AI was used and, if so, that all AI-assisted content was reviewed and verified for accuracy by a licensed attorney. Match your language to the specific order — don't assume one judge's form satisfies another's.
The duty that applies even when no rule does
Here's the part attorneys miss: the absence of a disclosure order is not permission to skip verification. Even in courts with no AI-specific rule, the duty of candor and the obligation to make a reasonable inquiry into the law still govern. In 2026, failing to check an AI-generated citation is treated as a failure of reasonable inquiry — full stop. Disclosure rules change what you must say; they don't change what you must do. (See our deep-dive on what Noland requires of your filing workflow.)
How to comply — a pre-filing routine
Check the court and the judge. Before filing, pull the court's local rules and the assigned judge's standing orders. Look specifically for AI provisions.
Determine your regime. Certification required? AI restricted? Existing duties only? Each dictates a different step.
Use the exact required form. If certification is required, use the order's specified format and location — page, footnote, or separate notice.
Verify everything, always. Independently confirm every citation and factual assertion, regardless of whether disclosure is required.
Keep records. Retain documentation of AI-assisted portions and your verification, in case the court asks.
Re-check periodically. These orders are updated frequently; don't rely on last quarter's version.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to disclose AI use in every court?
No — it depends entirely on the court and often the individual judge. Some require certification, some restrict AI, and some impose no specific rule. Always check the local rules and the assigned judge's standing orders before filing.
If there's no AI rule in my court, can I skip verification?
No. The duties of candor and reasonable inquiry still require you to verify AI-generated content. Not checking an AI citation is a failure of reasonable inquiry regardless of any disclosure rule.
Is court AI disclosure the same as disclosing AI use to my client?
No. Court disclosure obligations run to the tribunal and are separate from your Rule 1.4 duty to communicate with your client. You may have both. (See our piece on client communication and AI disclosure.)
What happens if I miss a required certification?
Consequences range from stricken filings to sanctions, fee-shifting, and reputational harm — outweighing the minimal effort of compliance.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Court requirements change frequently and vary by judge; confirm the current standing orders for your specific court before relying on any of the above.
Sources
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023) — sanctions for AI-fabricated citations
Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.), standing order on AI certification (2023) — widely regarded as the first federal AI standing order
Federal and state court standing orders and local rules on AI disclosure (2023–2026), which vary by court and judge
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024); duties of candor and reasonable inquiry (analogue to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7)
Reviewer note: confirm each named court/judge order against the current primary-source standing order before publish, and consider adding the specific orders most relevant to the firm's filing jurisdictions.