Proposed Tenth Circuit Rule 46.5 · comments close 18 October 2026
A signature says the review happened. What record shows what was reviewed?
Proposed revision to 10th Cir. R. 46.5, signing briefs, motions, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions · published for public comment 18 September 2026 · proposed to take effect 1 January 2027
Page verified 19 September 2026 against the Clerk’s memorandum of 18 September 2026 and the full redline of the 2027 Tenth Circuit Rules, both published by the court. This is a proposal, not a rule in force.
The Tenth Circuit has proposed making independent human verification part of the signature on every AI-assisted filing. Before filing, a human would have to independently verify the cited authorities, quotations, citations, legal analysis, and compliance with relevant rules and ethical obligations. The proposal does not require disclosure that AI was used. It makes the human review part of what the signature certifies.
Status
- 18 Sep 2026Published for public comment by the Clerk of Court, with the other proposed 2027 revisions to the Tenth Circuit Rules.
- 18 Oct 2026Comments close. The memorandum says comments may be submitted by email to the Clerk through this date.
- 1 Jan 2027The date the 2027 revisions are to take effect.
- TodayProposed, not adopted. The text below is the text published for comment.
The proposed text
Rule 46.5(B) already lists what an attorney or unrepresented party certifies by presenting a paper to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it. The proposal adds a fourth representation, (B)(4): that any document prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence has been reviewed, before filing or submission to the court, by a human who has
“independently verified the existence of all cited authorities; the accuracy of all quotations, citations, and legal analysis; and the document’s compliance with all relevant rules and ethical obligations.”
The Clerk’s memorandum gives the reason in one sentence: the revisions to subsections (B) and (C) are intended to address the increased use of generative artificial intelligence by both lawyers and pro se litigants.
The missing evidence
The proposed rule defines the duty. It does not prescribe the record a lawyer should retain if that review is later challenged.
The Regulayer Receipt records:
- WhoWho made the review statement
- WhatWhat they said they reviewed
- WhenWhen they signed it
- FingerprintThe content fingerprint tied to that statement
- IntegrityWhether the record has been altered
The record is signed on the lawyer’s own computer. An outsider can verify it independently.
Regulayer does not check citations, judge the legal analysis, or certify compliance. It preserves evidence of the review the lawyer says they performed, in a record an outsider can verify.
Why the record matters
Rule 46.5(C) lets the court, on its own or on a party’s motion, sanction the person who signed, a represented party, or both. The proposal adds two sanctions to the list, waiver of the affected issue and striking of a non-compliant document. They join the four already in the rule: dismissal or affirmance of the appeal, monetary sanctions, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and an order to pay the other party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.
Create a review record an outsider can verify
The Regulayer Receipt · $349 per month
Record the review, change one character afterwards, and verification fails. The filing demonstration runs in your own browser.
Sources
- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Public Comment Period Open for Revisions to the 2027 Tenth Circuit Rules, 18 September 2026
- Clerk’s memorandum of 2027 rules changes, 18 September 2026, read in full
- Full redline of the 2027 Tenth Circuit Rules, Rule 46.5 at redline pages 152 to 153
Related
- The law library · Court orders and rules on AI in filings
- Verification is becoming a duty. Evidence of verification is the missing layer.
- Ireland, High Court Practice Direction HC142, independent human verification, in operation since 1 September 2026
- Florida Rule 2.515(d)(2), the signature as a representation that cited authorities exist
- The sanctions record
- Regulayer for attorneys
Checked against the source 19 September 2026: the court’s notice, the Clerk’s memorandum and the redline, each read at ca10.uscourts.gov. A proposal can change before it is adopted. Information, not legal advice.
Information, not legal advice. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.