Court Rules on AI Disclosure and Certification in Filings

01 / PRACTICE NOTES

Disclosure and certification duties live in local rules and standing orders, so they vary by courtroom.

A lawyer filing in federal and state courts meets a patchwork. Some courts require a statement that generative AI helped prepare a brief, some require a certification that every citation was checked, and others state that existing duties already cover the point. ABA Formal Opinion 512 acknowledges that some courts have responded by requiring lawyers to disclose their use of generative AI and tells lawyers to consult the applicable court’s local rules.

This guide reads each requirement in the court’s own document: a district-wide rule, two judges’ orders, an appellate court’s decision not to adopt a rule, a state supreme court’s policy, a local rule on computer-generated content and the pending evidence-rule proposal. Each entry gives the court, the date and what the text requires. Confirm the current text before you file, because courts amend their rules and judges revise their orders.

02 / PRACTICE NOTES

N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires a first-page disclosure and treats silence as a certification.

Under Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), a brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence must disclose that fact on the first page under the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” If the presiding judge so directs, the party filing the brief must disclose the specific parts prepared using generative AI. The rule defines the term broadly: a computer tool, whether referred to as generative artificial intelligence or by another name, that is capable of generating new content, such as images and text, in response to a submitted prompt by learning from a large reference database of examples.

Subsection (f)(3) adds a certification by omission. A party who files a brief that does not contain the required disclosure certifies that no part of the brief was prepared using generative AI. The court adopted the rule by special order effective September 3, 2024, and a parallel rule, Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e), applies to criminal briefs. Individual judges in the district also post their own judge-specific requirements on the court’s website, so read the assigned judge’s page along with the local rules.

03 / PRACTICE NOTES

Judges Baylson and Vaden show two designs: certify the citations, or protect confidential information.

Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a standing order dated June 6, 2023. If an attorney or pro se party has used AI in preparing any complaint, answer, motion, brief or other paper filed in a case assigned to him, that filer must, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that AI was used in any way in the preparation of the filing and certify that each and every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate. The order is not limited to generative tools.

Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden of the Court of International Trade issued an Order on Artificial Intelligence in June 2023 that takes a confidentiality approach. It reasons that generative AI programs create risks to confidential and business proprietary information that the court must protect, and it requires that any submission containing text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program be accompanied by a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portions of text so drafted, and by a certification that the use did not result in disclosure of confidential or business proprietary information to any unauthorized party. After the notice, any party may seek relief the disclosed facts warrant.

The two orders ask for different proof. One focuses on verification of citations, and the other on the information that went into the tool. A filer who builds both records, a citation ledger and a note of what information was entered into which tool, can answer either order.

04 / PRACTICE NOTES

Appellate and state courts have relied on existing duties and policies.

The Fifth Circuit considered a proposed special rule on the use of artificial intelligence in briefs. In its notice titled Court Decision on Proposed Rule, the court stated that, having considered the proposed rule, the comments and the use of AI in legal practice, it decided not to adopt a special rule at this time. It reminded parties and counsel of their duties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B), stated that filings, including briefs, must be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require, and added that “I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025, authorizes AI use by litigants, attorneys, judges and court staff provided it complies with legal and ethical standards, states that disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading and requires all users to thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s preliminary guidelines of January 24, 2024 take a similar position: the Rules of Professional Conduct do not require a lawyer to disclose AI use, and AI use does not excuse false or misleading content.

Some local rules address computer-generated content without using the term disclosure. In the Eastern District of Texas, the court’s order to show cause in Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. cited Local Rule AT-3(b), which states a lawyer’s duty of candor, diligence and utmost respect to the judiciary, and Local Rule AT-3(m), which requires a lawyer to review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure it complies with those standards. A verification duty can sit in a general attorney rule, so read the attorney-conduct local rules as well as the briefing rules.

05 / PRACTICE NOTES

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 addresses machine output offered as evidence, and it is still under study.

Proposed Rule of Evidence 707 concerns evidence, not briefs. The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules drafted it to provide that when machine-generated evidence is introduced without an expert witness, and it would be considered expert testimony if presented by a witness, the standards of Rule 702(a) through (d) apply to that output. The Standing Committee approved the proposal for publication in June 2025, and it was released for public comment that August.

The Advisory Committee’s report of May 17, 2026 to the Standing Committee describes the public comment as mixed but helpful and states that the Committee does not recommend action on proposed Rule 707 at this time. The Committee prepared a revised draft that focuses on artificial intelligence rather than machine-generated information, includes a notice provision and presumes that an expert foundation is required while allowing other evidence of reliability. It decided not to release the revision for new public comment yet and planned to have technology experts review it at its fall meeting, together with its study of deepfakes. Follow the Committee’s page on uscourts.gov for the current status; until a rule takes effect, the existing evidence rules, including Rules 702 and 901, and the case law of your forum apply to AI-generated evidence.

06 / PRACTICE NOTES

Run a court-rules check before every filing and keep it on the matter calendar.

The check takes minutes when it is a standing task. In RuleX, add it to the case task list with a date before each filing deadline, attach the rule or order you found, and record the answer in the matter log. The federal deadline calculator on this site counts the filing date; the task makes sure the AI-disclosure question is answered before that date. Start the 7-day free trial, add a real matter and open the sources from the answer.

1. Read the court’s local rules for any provision on AI, computer-generated content or certification.
2. Open the assigned judge’s page and standing orders on the court’s website.
3. Check the state court’s rules and any supreme court policy if you file in state court.
4. Add the required disclosure or certification to the filing, using the court’s exact wording.
5. Keep the citation ledger and a note of which tools received which information.
6. Save the rule or order text and the check date in the matter file.