State and Federal Court Orders Regarding AI Usage

Courts across the country are beginning to confront the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into legal practice, and their response is increasingly taking the form of formal court orders. Both state and federal courts have issued directives addressing when and how AI tools may be used in drafting pleadings, conducting legal research, and submitting filings, often emphasizing transparency, accuracy, and attorney accountability. These orders signal a growing judicial effort to balance the efficiencies promised by AI with longstanding ethical obligations, procedural rules, and the court’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

For example, in Wisconsin, the Waukesha County Circuit Court, Family Division, recently issued a Standing Order governing the use of artificial intelligence tools in briefs, proposed orders, and all other written filings. The Order applies to all attorneys and pro se litigants in Family Division matters. Specifically, the Order states:

Independent Review Required

  • Any filing prepared with AI assistance must be independently reviewed by the submitting attorney or party.
  • The filer remains fully responsible for accuracy, legitimacy, and use of applicable law.

Mandatory Disclosure and Certification

  • Any use of AI – at any stage of drafting or review – must be disclosed in the filing.
  • The filing must include a certification identifying the AI tool(s) used and certifying, under penalty of perjury, that:
    • The document has been independently reviewed; and
    • Every citation to law, statute, case, or record has been verified and exists as cited.

No Reduction in Ethical Obligations

  • Use of AI does not relieve attorneys of professional or ethical duties under:
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, or
    • Wis. Stat. § 802.05

Consequences of Noncompliance

  • Striking of the filing
  • Court-imposed sanctions
  • Disciplinary referral

Practice Considerations

  • Treat AI-generated content as unverified draft material only.
  • Independently confirm all legal citations and authorities.
  • Ensure required disclosures and certifications are included in applicable filings.
  • Monitor other jurisdictions for similar AI-related court orders

However, the Supreme Court of Illinois has taken a different approach when providing guidance on the usage of AI. In December 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its “Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence” which became effective January 1, 2025. The Illinois Supreme Court encourages the responsible and supervised use of AI and recommends that Illinois state court judges not require lawyers to disclose the use of AI in drafting pleadings. The Policy states in pertinent part, “The use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys, and court staff providing similar support may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.” The guidance emphasizes that existing legal and ethical rules, rather than special provisions for AI, are sufficient to govern its use in litigation. Overall, the tone of the new guidance is to encourage the use of AI, so long as the use is responsible.

For federal courts, however, there seems to be a trend toward stricter, mandatory disclosure and certification or outright prohibition when it comes to court filings. Law360, a product of LexisNexis, has created a website which tracks federal judicial orders on artificial intelligence. For example, U.S. District Judge, Michael J. Newman, of the Southern District of Ohio issued an AI provision as part of the Court’s “Standing Order Governing Civil Cases” which became effective July 14, 2023. In pertinent part, the AI provision states:

“No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.”

Similarly, U.S. District Judge, Christopher A. Boyko, of the Northern District of Ohio has issued the “Court’s Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI”. This Order states:

“Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and the authority of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.”

U.S. District Court Judge, Anne Hwang, of the Central District of California permits the usage of AI but in the Court’s “Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Anne Hwang”, the Order states in pertinent part:

“Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.”

As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in everyday legal practice, it is unlikely that judicial oversight will recede. Instead, both state and federal courts will continue to confront new questions about accuracy, disclosure, confidentiality, and professional responsibility, often through standing orders, local rules, and case-specific directives. For attorneys, these developments underscore the importance of staying informed and adaptable, as court-issued guidance on the permissible use of AI will increasingly shape how legal work is performed and evaluated in the years ahead.

Lawyers Mutual would kindly request that if you become aware of any court order(s) regarding the usage of AI in any jurisdiction(s) in which you practice, please let us know! We would love to share this information with our readers and your colleagues.

Questions? Contact Jared Burke for more information.