An AI standing order is a rule issued by a judge or a court, outside any one case, that tells everyone who files before them how artificial intelligence may be used in preparing court papers. Most orders require you to disclose the AI tools you used, describe what you used them for, and certify that a named human verified the work. A smaller number prohibit AI-drafted filings outright.
The examples below are drawn from the courts' own documents, each linked. Verified 4 August 2026.
The four kinds of order
Hundreds of these orders exist and no two are identical, but nearly all fall into one of four shapes. The names are ours; the orders are real, and each links to the page where we quote the court's own document.
1. Disclosure only
Say that you used AI, name the tool, describe the manner of use. Nothing more. The standing order of Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes (N.D. Illinois, 31 May 2023) was the early model: disclose in the filing that AI was used, the specific tool, and the manner of use. It is also the clearest lesson that these orders move: the requirement was softened to a request in 2024 and dropped altogether by December 2024, and his current standing order (3 March 2026) asks for no disclosure at all. The order, and its withdrawal
2. Disclosure plus certification
The most common shape. Disclose the AI use, and certify that a person verified the result. Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Texas) issued the first federal AI standing order in May 2023: a certificate attesting that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy by a human against print reporters or traditional legal databases. It no longer appears on his requirements page; we keep it as history. The order
Senior Judge Michael M. Baylson (E.D. Pennsylvania, 6 June 2023) drew the widest circle: anyone who used AI, any AI, not only generative, must disclose it in a plain factual statement and certify that every citation to the law or the record was verified. The order · The court's document (PDF)
Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves (U.S. Court of International Trade, 3 July 2025) specifies the anatomy of the disclosure itself: the program, the manner in which it was used, and the specific portions of text drafted, plus a certification of review for factual and legal accuracy. The order · The court's document (PDF)
3. Verification mandate, no disclosure
A newer and growing shape: the court does not ask whether you used AI. It holds you personally responsible for the accuracy of whatever you filed. Judge Rita F. Lin (N.D. California, civil standing order of 7 May 2026) puts it in one sentence:
“Use of generative artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means.”
The order. The statewide rules below take the same approach.
4. Prohibition
A minority ban AI in the preparation of filings outright, with carve-outs for AI embedded in legal research platforms such as Westlaw and Lexis, internet search engines, and standard word-processing tools. As of 4 August 2026 the two federal examples in our verified directory are Judge Christopher A. Boyko (N.D. Ohio) and Judge Michael J. Newman (S.D. Ohio).
Where the requirement comes from
Three sources, and it helps to know which one binds you, because they demand different answers.
Rule 11, which predates AI
In federal court, every signature on a filing already certifies that the signer made an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law. That is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), and it is the rule under which nearly every AI-citation sanction to date was imposed. A standing order does not create this duty. It makes the duty explicit and, in most cases, adds paperwork.
The judge's own authority
Individual judges issue standing orders under their inherent authority to manage their dockets, which is why the requirements vary chambers by chambers and why the same courthouse can contain a ban and a no-disclosure rule at once.
Statewide rules, new in 2026
Two states have now replaced the patchwork with a single rule, and both chose verification over disclosure.
New York. 22 NYCRR Part 161, “Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology,” effective 1 June 2026, permits AI use in preparing submissions and does not mandate disclosure. It requires attorneys using AI tools to carefully review each paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material, grounded in the existing prohibitions on false statements and frivolous arguments (22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Rule 3.3). Individual courts may adopt the model rule in its Appendix A as a part rule, or impose their own requirements. Note the numbering collision: this is Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. An unrelated New York labor statute, the day-of-rest rule, is also numbered 161. This page is about the court rule. The rule text · The bar association's notice
Florida. Amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), effective 15 June 2026 (Case No. SC2026-0673, decided 28 May 2026), makes every signature on every filing a representation that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited,” with sanctions written into the rule: reprimand, contempt, striking, dismissal, costs, attorneys' fees. It applies to attorneys and self-represented litigants alike, and it says nothing about disclosure: how the citation was produced does not matter. A companion administrative order, AOSC26-12, makes the statewide rule exclusive and preempts the circuit-level disclosure orders, including Miami-Dade's AO 26-04 and Broward's AO 2026-03-Gen, both issued in January 2026. The opinion, full text · The Florida Bar's report
How many orders exist
Counts are snapshots and change weekly. Ours are dated; the trackers update continuously.
What an order actually asks for
Strip the variations away and the asks reduce to three:
- Disclose the tools. Which AI programs were used, sometimes any AI, more often generative AI by name.
- Describe the use. The manner of use, and in the stricter orders the specific portions of text the tool drafted.
- Certify the human verification. A named person states that they reviewed the AI-drafted material and checked every citation and quotation against the source.
Some orders prescribe the certification language word for word. Miami-Dade's now-superseded AO 26-04 required this sentence, substantially, at the conclusion of the filing or above the signature block:
“Generative artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of this filing. The undersigned certifies that all factual assertions, legal authority, and citations have been independently reviewed and verified for accuracy and accepts full responsibility for the contents of this filing.”
The administrative order's text, published by the Miami-Dade Bar. Superseded by Florida's statewide rule on 15 June 2026; shown here as the clearest specimen of the form.
When it goes wrong
The orders warn of sanctions, and the record shows courts mean it. The documented range in AI-citation cases runs from the $5,000 fine in Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) to $110,204.38 in combined sanctions and fees in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or. 2025 and 2026), with pro hac vice revocations, dismissals with prejudice, and bar referrals in between. The pattern in the orders: the response to the flag, more than the AI use itself, drives the severity. The sanctions record, case by case · If it already happened: the first 72 hours
How attorneys answer an order today
The typed declaration. In most courts today a typed declaration, signed and filed with the paper, is legally sufficient. The orders ask for your statement, and a Word document carries it. Say so plainly: for most filings, that is enough. Its limits are structural, not legal. It is undated beyond the filing itself. It is unverifiable: the judge must take your word that the review happened, because nothing about the document shows it. And it can be edited after the fact without leaving a trace.
The sealed certification. The Regulayer Receipt answers the same requirement as a record rather than a promise: which AI tools were used, for what, what you personally checked, your attestation verbatim, signed with your own key on your own machine at the moment of filing, sealed so any later change shows, and verifiable free by the judge or opposing counsel in any browser, forever, without an account. Nothing of the work leaves your machine. What a Regulayer Receipt is · What a record contains, field by field
Questions attorneys ask
Does an AI standing order ban the use of AI?
Usually not. Most orders regulate disclosure and verification, not use. A minority ban AI in preparing filings outright, with carve-outs for AI embedded in legal research databases and search engines. The two federal bans in our verified directory as of 4 August 2026 belong to Judge Boyko (N.D. Ohio) and Judge Newman (S.D. Ohio).
How do I find out whether my judge has one?
Check the assigned judge's page on the court's own website at the start of every matter, and again before filing; requirements change without notice. Our directory keeps one page per verified order, each checked against the court's own document with its verification date on the page.
Is a typed declaration enough to comply?
In most courts today, yes. The orders ask for the attorney's statement, and a signed declaration answers that requirement. What it cannot do is show when the review happened or whether the statement was later altered. A sealed, signed record answers the same requirement and adds those properties.
What happens if I violate one?
The orders themselves warn of sanctions, and the adjacent record in AI-citation cases runs from $5,000 (Mata v. Avianca, 2023) to $110,204.38 (Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, 2025 and 2026), plus revoked admissions, dismissals, and bar referrals. See the sanctions record.
Do the statewide rules replace the judges' orders?
In Florida, yes: AOSC26-12 preempts local AI-filing orders statewide. In New York, no: Part 161 is a floor, and individual judges keep discretion to impose their own requirements. In federal court everywhere, each judge's order stands on its own. Check before every filing.
Answer the order before it asks.
Find your judge's requirement in the verified directory, take the attestation language from the attorney's receipt and adapt it free, or generate the sealed certification itself: which AI you used, what you checked, signed on your own machine, verifiable free by anyone you send it to. Seven days free, then $349 a month. Cancel anytime; receipts stay valid forever.
Every order summarized on this page was re-read against the court's own document or the linked official text on 4 August 2026; where a fact rests on contemporaneous reporting rather than the document, we say so on the linked page. Standing orders change; confirm against the judge's live page before filing.
The same instrument, under other names
A standing order is the United States form. Elsewhere it is a practice note, a practice direction, a registrar's circular, or judiciary guidance, and several of them go further than any United States order.
AI rules for lawyers, country by country →