Courts and AI
Courts and AI
Court rules, standing orders, sanctions rulings, privilege and work-product decisions, protective-order restrictions, and tribunal guidance on AI use.
This page tracks what courts and tribunals are requiring, permitting, warning about, and sanctioning. It is about rules and rulings, not the broader universe of AI-related lawsuits.
46tracked court-rule and ruling developments
12jurisdictions and tribunal categories
5views for rules, rulings, tribunals, and bar guidance
222026-dated tracker updates
Featured alert: AI court rules and rulings
Courts are moving from general warnings about artificial intelligence to concrete filing certifications, protective-order restrictions, privilege rulings, and sanctions frameworks. There is still no single national rule, but there is now a growing body of court-specific requirements and decisions.
Bottom line: This page is a court-rules-and-rulings tracker. It focuses on what judges, courts, and tribunals are saying and doing, not on the full field of AI-related lawsuits.
What this page 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 filings and advocacy preparation, tool identity, discovery confidentiality, and open AI restrictions.
Patent practice
USPTO, PTAB, and TTAB guidance plus AI-inventorship rules affecting patent filing, prosecution, and tribunal practice.
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 and New York now show two statewide approaches: Florida requires signer certification that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited; New York permits AI-assisted submissions without systemwide disclosure but requires independent verification. | Lawyers should treat verification as the baseline obligation even when disclosure is not required. |
| Sanctions / local counsel | The Ninth Circuit’s Lnu v. Blanche order and the Northern District of Mississippi’s Withers v. City of Aberdeen sanctions order show courts escalating remedies for AI-fabricated authorities. | Candor, signer review, local-counsel supervision, and prompt correction can matter as much as the original AI use. |
| Patent practice | USPTO guidance applies existing duties of candor, signature certification, confidentiality, supervision, and export-control awareness, while AI inventorship still turns on human contribution. | Patent practice should be tracked separately from court standing orders because office practice and inventorship doctrine raise different questions. |
| Evidence | Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would address machine-generated evidence. | AI evidence issues may move from filing guidance into admissibility doctrine. |
AI court rules and rulings tracker
Search court rules, standing orders, sanctions decisions, protective-order rulings, administrative tribunal guidance, and bar guidance that shape how lawyers can use AI before courts and tribunals.
Last updated 2026-06-26
46published tracker rows
12jurisdictions and tribunal categories
21court-rule and standing-order items
14rulings and sanctions items
| Date / Type | Jurisdiction / Authority | Development | Requirement or Outcome | Practice Takeaway | Source Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-17Cases | Federal S.D.N.Y. |
United States v. Heppner Privilege; work product |
Attorney-client privilege and work-product protection denied | Consumer AI use outside counsel direction is high risk for privilege and work-product claims | primary order |
| 2026-02-10Cases | Federal E.D. Mich. |
Warner v. Gilbarco Inc. Work product |
AI-related litigation materials protected as work product; defendants’ motion to compel denied in relevant part | AI use does not automatically waive work product in civil litigation when disclosure is not likely to reach an adversary | primary order |
| 2026-03-30Cases | Federal D. Colo. |
Morgan v. V2X Inc. Work product; tool identity; protective order |
Work product reportedly protected but AI tool identity had to be disclosed; protective order amended | Tool identity may be discoverable even when AI-assisted mental impressions remain protected | primary order |
| 2025-10-30Cases | Federal E.D. Mich. |
Warner v. Gilbarco Inc. protective-order amendment Protective order |
Court modified Rule 26(c) protective order so documents marked confidential shall not be uploaded onto any AI platform | Protective orders can impose broad AI-upload bans for confidential discovery | primary order |
| 2026-03-25Cases | Federal D. Kan. |
Jeffries v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. Protective order |
Court granted motion to amend protective order and entered defendants’ proposed language restricting open AI tools for discovery materials | Discovery orders may restrict public AI based on retention training deletion clawback privacy and security risks | primary order |
| 2026-06-15Court Rules | Florida Supreme Court of Florida |
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 Court filing certification; sanctions |
Signer represents cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited; sanctions expressly authorized after notice and opportunity to be heard | Statewide uniform rule replaces varied circuit AI disclosure and certification requirements; comments due 2026-08-11 | primary administrative order |
| 2026-01-01Court Rules | Federal U.S. Bankruptcy Court S.D. Cal. |
General Order 210 and CSD 5013 Court filing disclosure and certification |
Disclosure and certification required through local form CSD 5013; filer identifies AI program and certifies factual/legal accuracy check outside AI | Useful model for courtwide filing-attestation process | primary order |
| 2026-01-28Court Rules | Federal D. Kan. |
Standing Order 26-01 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings Court filing verification; sanctions |
Litigants remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted content; court may strike filings impose sanctions or require sworn AI-use statements | Good example of districtwide caution plus discretionary case-specific disclosure | primary order |
| 2025-12-01Court Rules | Federal D. Colo. Judge Nina Y. Wang |
Standing Order Regarding Use of Generative AI in Court Filings Court filing certification; client consent |
Every filing must include AI certification; if AI used counsel must certify human review and client consent | Judge-specific orders may go beyond Rule 11 by requiring AI-use certifications in every filing | primary order |
| 2024-10-21Court Rules | Federal D. Colo. Magistrate Judge Susan Prose |
Standing Order Requiring Certification Re Use of AI in Filings Court filing certification |
Specified motions must certify AI use or non-use; noncompliant filings may be stricken | Certification requirements may be limited by motion type and referral posture | primary order |
| 2023-06-06Court Rules | Federal E.D. Pa. Judge Michael M. Baylson |
Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson Court filing disclosure and certification |
AI use must be disclosed in a plain factual statement and citations must be certified as verified | Early judge-specific model for AI disclosure and citation verification | primary order |
| 2023-06-08Court Rules | Federal U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden |
Order on Artificial Intelligence Confidentiality; court filing disclosure |
Parties using generative AI must disclose program and AI-drafted text and certify no unauthorized disclosure of confidential or business proprietary information | Important confidentiality-focused court order for AI use in litigation filings | primary order |
| 2025-06-10Proposed Rules | Federal Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules |
Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 Machine-generated evidence; admissibility |
Would require Rule 702-style reliability showing when machine-generated evidence would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness | Track as systemic evidence-rule development separate from filing-certification standing orders | primary committee report |
| 2024-06-10Court Rules | Federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
Decision not to adopt proposed AI briefing rule Appellate filing certification |
Court declined to adopt a special AI rule at that time | Important negative datapoint: existing certification and accuracy duties may be viewed as sufficient at appellate level | primary court rule-change page |
| 2023-11-13Court Rules | Federal D. Haw. |
General Order 23-1 re In re Use of Unverified Sources Court filing disclosure; unverified sources |
Requires a Reliance on Unverified Source declaration when counsel or a pro se party submits filing material generated by an unverified source; excludes basic research tools such as Westlaw Lexis Fastcase Bloomberg Law Westlaw Edge Lexis+ or similar reliable legal sources | Useful district-wide model treating generative AI output as an unverified source | primary order |
| 2024-12-01Court Rules | Federal D. Neb. |
Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d) Generative AI and Certificate of Compliance Court filing certification; Rule 11 |
Requires certificate stating no generative AI was used or that a human verified all generated text citations and legal authority | Notable district-wide local rule rather than individual standing order | primary local rules |
| 2025-09-02Court Rules | Federal N.D. Tex. |
Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) and Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e) AI disclosure Court filing disclosure |
A brief prepared using generative AI must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence; no disclosure certifies no generative AI was used | Track as district-wide local-rule approach | primary court rule page |
| 2025-09-01Court Rules | California Judicial Council of California |
California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80 Judicial-branch generative AI policy |
Courts that allow generative AI must adopt a use policy or prohibit use; Standard 10.80 provides guidance for judicial officers acting in an adjudicative role | Statewide court-system governance model rather than attorney filing-disclosure rule | primary rule |
| 2025-01-01Court Rules | Illinois Supreme Court of Illinois |
Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence Court and litigation AI use; existing-rule sufficiency |
Policy permits AI use subject to existing legal ethical and court rules and says existing rules are sufficient | Important contrast to jurisdictions adopting new disclosure mandates | primary court announcement |
| 2025-08-01Court Rules | Louisiana Louisiana Legislature |
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 371(C) Evidence authenticity; AI evidence |
Requires reasonable diligence regarding authenticity of evidence before offering it to the court | Track as evidence/authenticity rule rather than filing-certification rule | primary act text |
| 2025-08-08Tribunals | Federal administrative Executive Office for Immigration Review |
Policy Memorandum 25-40 guidance on generative AI in immigration proceedings Administrative tribunal filings; hallucinated citations |
No blanket ban or mandatory disclosure; adjudicators may address inaccurate AI-assisted filings through existing authorities | Useful admin-tribunal example focused on verification and discipline rather than blanket prohibition | primary policy memo |
| 2024-04-11Tribunals | Federal administrative USPTO |
Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the USPTO Administrative tribunal filings; candor; confidentiality; signature duties |
Applies existing USPTO duties of candor signature certification confidentiality supervision and export-control considerations to AI-assisted practice | Key IP-facing tribunal policy for PTAB and TTAB work | primary Federal Register notice |
| 2024-02-06Tribunals | Federal administrative USPTO Director; PTAB; TTAB; Office of General Counsel |
Director Vidal Memorandum on AI-related party and practitioner misconduct Administrative tribunal misconduct; sanctions; existing rules |
Existing USPTO rules apply regardless of how a submission is generated; AI-assisted submissions must be reviewed and verified by a person | USPTO took an existing-rules approach rather than adopting new PTAB or TTAB AI-specific procedural rules | primary policy memo |
| 2024-04-11Tribunals | Federal administrative PTAB |
PTAB application of USPTO AI guidance PTAB filings; candor; sanctions; reasonable inquiry |
Parties and practitioners must verify factual and legal contentions and correct errors; PTAB proceedings are subject to candor and sanctions rules | For IP litigation practice flag AI-assisted PTAB petitions responses expert materials and prior-art analysis as high-verification tasks | primary Federal Register notice |
| 2024-04-11Tribunals | Federal administrative TTAB |
TTAB application of USPTO AI guidance to trademark evidence and specimens TTAB filings; trademark evidence; specimens; marketplace-use proof |
Practitioners should avoid submitting AI-generated specimens or AI-created evidence that does not show actual marketplace use and must verify legal arguments citations and facts | For trademark disputes distinguish AI-assisted drafting from AI-generated proof of use; the latter is especially risky because it may misstate marketplace facts | primary Federal Register notice |
| 2025-06-05Court Rules | Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Proposed Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25 Artificial Intelligence Court-system AI policy; confidential court data |
Proposed administrative order published for comment addressing generative AI use with confidential court data | State supreme court-level AI governance proposal focused on confidentiality and court data | primary court proposal |
| 2026-05-20Court Rules | Florida Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida Miami-Dade County |
Administrative Order 26-15 re use of AI in court filings by attorneys and self-represented litigants Court filing disclosure and verification |
Requires disclosure of generative AI use and verification that the filing was independently checked | Local Florida circuit order aligned with Broward and later superseding earlier Miami-Dade AO 26-04 | primary court announcement |
| 2026-01-26Court Rules | Florida Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Broward County |
Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen use of AI in court filings Court filing disclosure and certification |
Requires disclosure/certification when generative AI is used in court filings and emphasizes accuracy confidentiality candor diligence and procedural-rule compliance | Local Florida circuit order requiring AI-use certification in filings | primary order |
| 2025-12-08Court Rules | North Carolina Superior Court of Cabarrus County |
Revised Administrative Order re Artificial Intelligence in Superior Court Proceedings Court filing disclosure; AI-generated content; pro se and attorney filings |
Revised local administrative order governs AI use in superior court proceedings and supersedes prior Cabarrus order | County-level state court AI order; useful as an early state trial-court model | primary order |
| 2024-01-19Bar Guidance | Florida The Florida Bar |
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 Lawyers’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Lawyer ethics; competence; confidentiality; supervision; fees; advertising |
Lawyers may use generative AI if they comply with existing ethics obligations including confidentiality competence supervision candor fees and advertising duties | State bar ethics guidance should be tracked separately from court filing orders | primary bar ethics opinion |
| 2023-11-16Bar Guidance | California State Bar of California |
Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law Lawyer ethics; competence; confidentiality; supervision; billing; candor |
Applies existing California professional duties to generative AI use and flags confidentiality competence supervision candor and billing risks | State bar practical guidance complements California court-system Rule 10.430 but serves a different audience | primary bar guidance |
| 2024-03-28Bar Guidance | Michigan State Bar of Michigan |
Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI report and resources Lawyer ethics; competence; confidentiality; unauthorized practice; access to justice |
State Bar of Michigan identifies ethical considerations and lawyer obligations to understand AI’s benefits and risks | Useful Michigan-specific bar source for ethics and practice training rather than a binding court order | primary bar resource |
| 2024-08-07Bar Guidance | New York New York City Bar Association |
Formal Opinion 2024-5 Generative AI in the Practice of Law Lawyer ethics; confidentiality; competence; candor; supervision; fees |
Opinion identifies existing professional duties implicated by generative AI use including confidentiality competence diligence candor supervision and client communication | Use as New York ethics guidance; do not label as statewide court rule | primary bar ethics opinion |
| 2026-06-04Cases | Oregon Oregon Supreme Court |
Aldridge v. Tussing Fabricated authorities; sanctions; pro se filings |
Court struck petition and show-cause response and dismissed proceeding | Repeating fabricated-authority misconduct after a direct warning can convert a filing error into case-ending sanctions | primary order |
| 2026-06-04Cases | Oregon Oregon Supreme Court |
Witkin v. McGreevy Fabricated authorities; sanctions; certification; pro se filings |
Court struck response imposed $500 sanction and allowed corrected filing with source-existence certification | Prompt compliance and acceptance of responsibility may mitigate sanctions but do not excuse an unverified filing | primary order |
| 2026-03-23Cases | Federal District of Oregon |
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky Fabricated authorities; Rule 11; local counsel; fee shifting |
Court finalized $94,704.38 fee-and-cost award allocated 85% to lead counsel and 15% to local counsel after earlier sanctions and dismissal with prejudice | Local counsel and supervising lawyers cannot treat filing and pro hac vice responsibilities as merely administrative | primary order |
| 2026-06-03Cases | Federal Ninth Circuit |
Lnu v. Blanche Fabricated authorities; inaccurate authorities; candor; appellate discipline |
Court imposed $2500 on each lawyer six-month suspensions broad notice duties two-year AI disclosure and verification requirements and licensing-authority referrals | Candor after discovery of an AI-assisted error can materially affect discipline and firm policies do not replace personal verification | primary published order |
| 2026-06-01Court Rules | New York New York State Unified Court System |
Part 161 Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology Court filing verification; AI use; sanctions |
AI use is permitted without systemwide mandatory disclosure but users must understand tool limits and independently verify papers contain no fabricated or fictitious cases statutes or other material | New York chose a verification-first statewide rule while allowing individual judges to adopt additional part rules | primary rule |
| 2026-06-08Cases | Federal N.D. Miss. |
Withers v. City of Aberdeen Fabricated authorities; Rule 11; local counsel; pro hac vice; disqualification |
Court disqualified all four lawyers from the case revoked two pro hac vice admissions barred those lawyers from appearing in the district for two years imposed fines and referred the order to disciplinary authorities | Local counsel and sponsoring counsel face personal risk when they act as a rubber stamp for AI-assisted filings prepared by others | primary docket; secondary order copy |
| 2026-06-16Bar Guidance | California State Bar of California |
Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence Lawyer ethics; competence; confidentiality; supervision; agentic AI |
State Bar seeks public comment on proposed amendments addressing AI use in legal practice | California may move from practical AI guidance toward binding professional-conduct language including agentic-AI issues | primary bar proposal |
| 2026-06-11Cases | Federal E.D. Tex. |
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial Inc. Fabricated authorities; Rule 11; attorney supervision; verification certification |
Court sanctioned attorney Amy L.B. Ginsburg publicly reprimanded her required CLE required review of 2026 filings for authority accuracy and imposed a certification-of-verification requirement for future filings | Wrong-draft and staff-blame explanations are unlikely to mitigate if counsel cannot show personal verification of authorities quotes and the filed version | primary docket; secondary summary |
| 2026-03-20Cases | Ohio Ohio Court of Appeals Eleventh Appellate District |
State v. Coleman Fabricated record quotations; sanctions; nonlawyer supervision; duty to correct |
Court imposed a $2000 sanction credited against settlement payment referred counsel to disciplinary authorities struck the application removed counsel required CLE required apologies and imposed two-year court-notice and filing-certification obligations | AI supervision failures are not limited to fake case citations; fabricated record quotations and failure to correct after notice can trigger broad protective sanctions | primary opinion |
| 2026-04-01Bar Guidance | Ohio Ohio Board of Professional Conduct |
Ohio Ethics Guide Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers Lawyer and judicial ethics; competence; confidentiality; supervision; candor; judicial decision-making |
Nonbinding Board staff guide applies existing Ohio professional-conduct and judicial-conduct duties to AI use including independent verification confidentiality safeguards supervision fee reasonableness candor and judicial nondelegation | Track separately from court filing rules because it is nonbinding ethics guidance but it is a useful Ohio-specific synthesis for lawyers and judges | primary ethics guide |
| 2026-04-03Cases | Federal Sixth Circuit |
United States v. Farris Fabricated quotations; inaccurate authorities; CJA counsel; legal AI product |
Court denied CJA compensation forwarded opinion for disciplinary review served district court and bar authorities and separately removed counsel and ordered new briefing | Legal AI tools from established providers can still produce false quotations or misleading case descriptions; attorney verification remains nondelegable | primary published opinion |
| 2026-06-17Cases | Michigan Michigan Court of Appeals |
Barber v. Morawa Fabricated authorities; unsupported citations; sanctions; grievance referral |
Court affirmed denial of new trial but held counsel violated MCR 7.216(C)(1) and MCR 1.109(E)(5) remanded for actual damages and reasonable fees payable personally by counsel and forwarded opinion to the Attorney Grievance Commission | Published Michigan appellate authority confirms AI-related citation failures can trigger personal fee exposure and disciplinary referral | primary published opinion |
| 2026-04-28Court Rules | Oregon Oregon Court of Appeals |
Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI Fabricated authorities; court notice; sanctions warning |
Fabricated authority can support striking a filing monetary sanctions payable to the court attorney-fee awards to opposing parties and dismissal of the appeal | Oregon appellate courts are moving from case-by-case sanctions to broader public notice of verification obligations | primary court notice |
No tracker rows match the current filters.
Publication policy: rows are sourced to primary court, agency, legislature, or bar materials where available. Secondary trackers are used for lead generation and are not treated as final authority.
What lawyers and court-facing teams 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 treat a no-disclosure rule as a no-review rule; court rules increasingly focus on whether the filing was independently verified.
- 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.