Who is asking
Verification was always the duty. Disclosure is the newer, narrower part.
Rule 11(b) makes every signature a certification that, to the best of the signer’s knowledge formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the claims are warranted by existing law. That binds every attorney on every filing in federal court, and it predates AI entirely.
Fifteen in force
Fifteen federal judges and districts currently have AI standing orders in force. Twelve require a declaration of the tools used plus certification of human verification. Two prohibit AI in filings outright. One requires personal verification with no disclosure at all.
The sharpest rule
In the Northern District of Texas, Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) requires a brief prepared using generative AI to say so on the first page. Subsection (f)(3) is the part most lawyers miss: filing without that heading is an affirmative certification that no part of the brief was AI-prepared. Silence is a statement.
Florida
Florida takes the other approach: Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), in force since 15 June 2026, makes every signature a representation that the authorities cited exist and are accurately cited, with sanctions in the rule itself, and circuits are prohibited from adding disclosure requirements of their own.
The EU AI Act
Article 50 transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026. Article 50(4) exempts published content that has undergone human review where a named person or organisation holds editorial responsibility. That exemption turns on evidence of review, which is what the record is.
Disclosure varies by court and is receding in places. Verification is universal and is not going anywhere.
The consequence
Five cases, all read against the courts’ own orders.
| Case | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Mata v. Avianca S.D.N.Y. 2023 | $5,000 imposed jointly and severally on counsel and the firm, over fabricated citations |
| Wadsworth v. Walmart D. Wyo., Feb 2025 | $3,000 and revocation of pro hac vice admission for one attorney, $1,000 each for two others |
| Lacey v. State Farm C.D. Cal., May 2025 | $31,100 in compensation to the defence, ordered jointly and severally against two firms. A fee-shifting award by a special master rather than a fine |
| Johnson v. Dunn N.D. Ala. 2025 | Public reprimand, disqualification from continued participation, and referral to the state bar. The firm had an AI policy |
| Coomer v. Lindell D. Colo., 2025 | $3,000 each against two attorneys, over nearly thirty defective citations |
Every one of these was a case where nothing existed to show what had been checked, and when. The policy document was not the failure. The failure was that nothing showed whether it had been followed on the day.
In Whiting v. City of Athens, the Sixth Circuit issued an order to show cause directing counsel to answer seven questions, among them whether the briefs were ghostwritten and how the citations were checked.