Rule 11 and AI-Drafted Filings: Review Before You Sign

01 / PRACTICE NOTES

Signing certifies a reasonable inquiry, whoever or whatever drafted the paper.

Rule 11(a) requires every pleading, written motion and other paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record. Rule 11(b) then states what the paper carries: by presenting it to the court, “whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it,” the attorney or unrepresented party certifies that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the paper meets four conditions. The rule attaches to the person who presents the paper, and it continues to apply as the lawyer advocates the paper later.

Courts apply that text to AI-assisted drafts without a special standard. In Coomer v. Lindell, the District of Colorado quoted another district court’s statement that a litigant’s using AI and then failing to verify the accuracy of the results it yields violates the litigant’s Rule 11 obligations. In Mata v. Avianca, the first widely cited sanctions order, the court stated that existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.

02 / PRACTICE NOTES

Rules 11(b)(2) and 11(b)(3) catch the two places AI errors land: the law and the facts.

Rule 11(b)(2) certifies that the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. A citation to an opinion that does not exist cannot meet that standard, and the Coomer court collected decisions holding that citing non-existent cases implicates Rule 11 and that misrepresenting a case’s holding does too. The inquiry therefore runs to the proposition each case supports, the court that decided it and what the court actually held, in addition to its existence.

Rule 11(b)(3) certifies that the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have it after reasonable investigation or discovery. AI-assisted summaries, chronologies and statements of fact belong in this inquiry. Tie each factual sentence to a document and page before it enters a filing. Rule 11(b)(4) applies the same discipline to denials of factual contentions, which matters when a tool helps draft an answer. Rule 11(b)(1) adds the certification that the paper is not presented for an improper purpose such as harassment, unnecessary delay or needless cost.

03 / PRACTICE NOTES

Rule 11(c) decides who answers, how a sanction is shaped and when you can fix the paper.

Rule 11(c)(1) allows an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation, and it provides that, absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate or employee. Courts have used the provision across a team: in Wadsworth v. Walmart, the drafter, a supervising attorney and local counsel were each sanctioned.

Rule 11(c)(2) gives a correction window. A motion for sanctions must be made separately, served under Rule 5 and described with the specific conduct at issue, and it must not be filed or presented to the court if the challenged paper is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. The court can also act alone: under Rule 11(c)(3) it may order an attorney, law firm or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). The sanctions orders in Gauthier v. Goodyear and Wadsworth v. Walmart began with orders to show cause.

Rule 11(c)(4) limits a sanction to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives, an order to pay a penalty into court and, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, payment of the movant’s reasonable attorney’s fees. Rule 11(c)(5) bars monetary sanctions against a represented party for a violation of Rule 11(b)(2), and Rule 11(c)(6) requires an order to describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis.

04 / PRACTICE NOTES

Discovery papers follow Rule 26(g), and Section 1927 reaches unreasonable multiplication of proceedings.

Rule 11(d) provides that the rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections and motions under Rules 26 through 37. Rule 26(g) governs those papers. By signing a disclosure, an attorney certifies after a reasonable inquiry that it is complete and correct when made, and by signing a discovery request, response or objection the attorney certifies that it is consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument, not interposed for an improper purpose and neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome. If a certification violates the rule without substantial justification, Rule 26(g)(3) provides that the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction. A tool-drafted set of discovery responses calls for the same read-through as a brief.

28 U.S.C. § 1927 is a separate source of authority. It allows a court to require an attorney who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of the conduct. The orders to show cause in Mata v. Avianca invoked Rule 11(b)(2) and (c), Section 1927 and the court’s inherent power together, so a filing review should assume all three are available to the court. State rules add their own layer: the North Carolina State Bar’s 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 ties a lawyer who signs a pleading based on AI-generated information to both Rule 3.1 and the signature certificate in N.C. R. Civ. P. 11.

05 / PRACTICE NOTES

A signing-day review for AI-assisted drafts.

Do the review on the final version, after the last edit, and complete it before anyone signs. Each step answers a clause of Rule 11(b). The citation-ledger method in the guide on verifying case citations gives the format for the authority check, and the court-rules guide gives the local-rule check.

1. Mark each passage the tool drafted or restructured, so the reviewer knows where to look hardest.
2. List every legal contention and open each authority at its source; match the holding, court and level to the proposition (Rule 11(b)(2)).
3. Compare each quotation with the original text, including omissions and alterations.
4. Tie each factual sentence to a document and page in the record (Rule 11(b)(3) and (b)(4)).
5. Confirm the paper has a proper purpose and that the relief and argument fit the matter (Rule 11(b)(1)).
6. Check the local rules and the judge’s orders for AI disclosure or certification.
7. Have every signer read the final text, including supervising and local counsel.
8. Save the ledger, the fact table and the review date with the matter.

06 / PRACTICE NOTES

Draft beside the record in RuleX and keep the review inside the same matter.

RuleX works with up to twenty documents at once while keeping citations and context, so the draft starts from the record. It asks the questions that change the document, researches federal and state law with sources you open from the answer and writes the filing in Canvas beside the file, with an editable Word version for your final read. Cases hold the tasks, dates and log, so the signing-day review has an owner and a date. Start the 7-day free trial, add a real matter and open the sources from the answer.