AI Disclosure in Court Filings: State-by-State Guide
Over 200 federal judges have issued standing orders on AI. Requirements vary widely, and non-compliance triggers sanctions.
The patchwork of AI disclosure requirements across US courts creates compliance complexity for practitioners. As the ABA's litigation section has documented, Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued the first standing order in 2023. Since then, hundreds of state and federal judges have amended or issued orders addressing AI use in court filings.
Understanding where disclosure is mandatory versus voluntary, and what each requirement entails, is essential for avoiding sanctions.
Federal Court Landscape
Standing Order Approaches
Federal judges have adopted varying approaches to AI disclosure:
Certification Model: Some judges require attorneys to certify that either no portion of their filing relied on generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language was independently verified with traditional legal research tools.
Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Texas) pioneered this approach, requiring affirmative certification about AI use or non-use.
Disclosure-Plus-Verification Model: Judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judges Baylson and Pratter) require parties to disclose if generative AI was used in filing preparation and certify that each citation is accurate.
Reminder Model: Some judges, like Judge Iain D. Johnston (N.D. Illinois), remind attorneys of existing duties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 26(g) without imposing additional disclosure or certification requirements.
Prohibition Model: The Western District of North Carolina issued a standing order requiring lawyers to certify that AI was not used to prepare the brief.
Notable Retreats
Illinois Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes withdrew his standing order on generative AI approximately one year after issuing it, finding it "no longer necessary and slightly burdensome."
This withdrawal suggests that some judges concluded existing professional responsibility rules adequately address AI use without additional court-specific requirements.
Resources for Tracking
Several resources track federal AI orders:
- RAILS AI in Courts Tracker (last updated May 2025)
- Ropes & Gray Court Order Tracker (public map interface)
- Lexis Federal and State Court Rules Tracker (paid subscription)
- Law360 AI Tracker
Given the volume of orders and their evolution, practitioners should verify current requirements before filing in any jurisdiction.
Pennsylvania: A Detailed Example
Pennsylvania offers a useful case study of multi-level AI requirements.
State-Level Requirements
Pennsylvania mandates explicit disclosure of AI use in all court submissions as of August 2024. Transparency is a filing requirement, not merely best practice.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued guidance in September 2025 permitting judiciary personnel to use generative AI within defined confines for certain work products, clarifying that the technology is acceptable when properly governed.
Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200
The Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association issued Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 addressing ethical obligations when using generative AI. The opinion covers:
- Competence (RPC 1.1): Proficiency includes knowing AI limitations and verifying citations
- Confidentiality (RPC 1.6): Managing bias and data exposure
- Communication (RPC 1.4): Client disclosure considerations
- Candor (RPC 3.3): Truthfulness of AI-generated content
- Supervisory Responsibilities (RPC 5.1/5.3): Oversight of AI-using lawyers and staff
The opinion warns that proficiency includes "obtaining informed client consent where data is exposed."
Federal Court Requirements in Pennsylvania
Judge Karoline Mehalchick (M.D. Pennsylvania) issued a Civil Practice Order in August 2024 regarding generative AI use. The order observes that "increased use of Artificial Intelligence... raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information."
Enforcement Example
On 28 August 2025, Judge Mehalchick sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for citing a non-existent case hallucinated by AI. The plaintiff admitted the citation was AI-generated after opposing counsel noted the Third Circuit opinion could not be found.
The Court found two violations:
- Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires legal contentions to be warranted
- Undisclosed AI use violated the judge's Standing Order setting forth disclosure procedures
Other State Developments
California
No jurisdiction-wide rule requires AI disclosure, but individual judges have issued standing orders. Consumer-facing AI disclosure legislation has progressed separately from court filing requirements.
Texas
The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) passed in June 2025 with January 2026 effective date, though this addresses broader AI governance rather than court filing disclosure specifically.
Individual Texas federal judges (including Judge Starr) have standing orders with specific requirements.
New York
New York courts have not imposed uniform AI disclosure requirements, but Greenberg Traurig analysis notes the need to navigate disclosure rules across multiple New York court systems.
Colorado
Colorado enacted comprehensive AI legislation (effective June 2026) addressing developers and deployers of AI systems, though court filing requirements operate through separate judicial rules.
Voluntary Disclosure Considerations
When Courts Lack Mandatory Requirements
In jurisdictions without standing orders or rules requiring AI disclosure, voluntary disclosure remains a strategic decision.
Arguments for voluntary disclosure:
- Demonstrates good faith and candor
- May mitigate sanctions if problems are later discovered
- Aligns with emerging professional norms
- Preempts adversary attempts to characterize AI use negatively
Arguments against voluntary disclosure:
- May invite scrutiny where none is required
- Creates potential for inconsistent treatment across matters
- Adds administrative overhead
- May highlight AI use to judges skeptical of the technology
ABA Guidance
ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not mandate AI disclosure to courts beyond existing candor obligations. However, the opinion emphasizes competence requirements that effectively require verification of AI-generated content before submission.
Some practitioners interpret candor obligations under existing rules as requiring disclosure when AI contributed substantially to work product, even absent specific AI disclosure rules.
Practical Compliance Steps
Before Filing
- Identify applicable requirements: Check standing orders for the specific judge and any court-wide rules
- Document AI usage: Track which portions of filings involved AI assistance
- Verify all citations: Confirm case existence, citation accuracy, and current validity
- Review AI-generated content: Ensure factual accuracy and legal correctness
- Prepare disclosure statement: If required or voluntary disclosure is appropriate
For Firms
- Create jurisdiction database: Maintain current list of AI requirements by court
- Develop standard disclosure language: Template language for various disclosure requirements
- Establish verification workflows: Documented processes for AI output review
- Train all filers: Ensure attorneys and staff understand requirements
- Monitor developments: Track new orders and rule changes
Documentation
Maintain records of:
- Which AI tools were used
- What prompts were given
- What output was generated
- What verification was performed
- Who performed verification
- Any edits made to AI output
This documentation supports defense against sanctions if issues arise.
Key Takeaways
- Over 200 federal judges have issued standing orders on AI in court filings; requirements range from certification to prohibition
- Pennsylvania mandates AI disclosure in all court submissions; Joint Opinion 2024-200 addresses ethical obligations comprehensively
- Middle District of Pennsylvania sanctioned a litigant in August 2025 for citing AI-hallucinated cases without disclosure
- No uniform federal or national standard exists; practitioners must verify requirements for each specific court and judge
- Voluntary disclosure in courts without requirements involves strategic tradeoffs between transparency and scrutiny risks
For an overview of how courts are developing governance frameworks through standing orders, see Ballard Spahr's analysis of the nascent governance landscape.