Litigation Practice
Court rules, standing orders, privilege decisions, work-product rulings, and protective-order restrictions on AI use in litigation.
Featured alert: AI in Litigation
Courts are moving from general AI warnings to concrete filing certifications, protective-order restrictions, and sanctions frameworks.
Bottom line: AI-assisted work must be verified, disclosed where required, and kept away from protected material unless the governing order and tool terms allow it.
What this tracker covers
Court rules and standing orders
Forum-specific filing certifications, AI disclosure rules, sanctions warnings, and state court policies.
Privilege, work product, and protective orders
Early decisions on AI-assisted litigation preparation, tool identity, discovery confidentiality, and open AI restrictions.
State court and bar guidance
State court policies, local administrative orders, and state or local bar guidance verified against primary sources.
Featured developments
| Category | Development | Practice point |
|---|---|---|
| Privilege / work product | United States v. Heppner and Warner v. Gilbarco reached different results on AI-related work product. | AI use does not create one uniform privilege rule; counsel direction, platform type, confidentiality, and procedural posture matter. |
| Protective orders | Morgan v. V2X and Jeffries v. Harcros Chemicals restricted AI use with confidential or discovery material. | Protective orders should address open vs. closed AI tools, training, retention, deletion, and disclosure. |
| Filing rules | Florida, N.D. Tex., D. Haw., D. Neb., D. Kan., and S.D. Cal. Bankruptcy have adopted different certification or disclosure approaches. | Litigators should check forum-specific AI rules before filing. |
| Evidence | Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would address machine-generated evidence. | AI evidence issues may move from filing practice into admissibility doctrine. |
AI litigation rules and orders
| Category | Forum | Rule or order | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing certification | Florida | Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) | Signer represents cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited; sanctions are expressly authorized after notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| Disclosure | N.D. Tex. | Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) and Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e) | Briefs prepared using generative AI must disclose that fact on the first page under the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” |
| Verification / sanctions | D. Neb. | Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d) | Briefs and motions require a certificate stating no generative AI was used or that a human verified generated text, citations, and legal authority. |
| Disclosure | D. Haw. | General Order 23-1 re Use of Unverified Sources | Requires a declaration when counsel or a pro se party submits filing material generated by an unverified source, including AI-generated material. |
| Verification / sanctions | D. Kan. | Standing Order 26-01 | Litigants remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted content; the court may strike filings, impose sanctions, or require sworn AI-use statements. |
| Disclosure | S.D. Cal. Bankruptcy | General Order 210 and CSD 5013 | Requires disclosure and certification through local form CSD 5013, including identification of the AI program and independent accuracy review. |
| Disclosure | E.D. Pa. Judge Baylson | Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence | AI use must be disclosed in a plain factual statement, and citations must be certified as verified. |
| Confidentiality | Court of International Trade Judge Vaden | Order on Artificial Intelligence | Parties using generative AI must disclose the program and AI-drafted text and certify no unauthorized disclosure of confidential or business proprietary information. |
| State court | California | California Rule of Court 10.430 | Courts that allow generative AI use by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a use policy or prohibit use. |
| State court | Illinois | Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence | Permits AI use subject to existing legal, ethical, and court rules and treats existing rules as sufficient. |
Source note: This table includes high-value primary-source rows from the tracker. The full working tracker includes additional local orders, proposed rules, evidence rules, and state court developments under verification.
What litigators should do now
- Review judge-specific standing orders, local rules, state court policies, and tribunal guidance before major filings.
- Verify every citation, quotation, record reference, legal proposition, and factual assertion in AI-assisted work.
- Do not upload confidential discovery, privileged material, trade secrets, protected health information, export-controlled information, or business proprietary information into public AI tools.
- Confirm whether any protective order permits closed enterprise AI tools and whether the tool contract addresses training, retention, disclosure, and deletion.
- Treat AI-generated evidence differently from AI-assisted drafting. Evidence still must be authentic, admissible, and tied to real-world facts.
Source note: Clearon gives preference to primary court, agency, legislature, and bar sources. Secondary trackers are used as leads, not as final authority.