À suivreGuide suivant
Décrets présidentiels américains sur l’IA
Société
GUIDE DE LA SOCIÉTÉ
Judges' Standing Orders on AI in Court Filings
Judges' standing orders on AI are court instructions that require lawyers and self-represented parties to disclose generative AI use in filings, certify that a human checked AI-assisted content, or both.
Sur cette page4 minutes de lecture
Aperçu
They matter because the rules differ from judge to judge, and breaking one can bring sanctions, damage credibility with the court, and harm the client.
Plongée profonde
AI standing orders are instructions that individual judges, and sometimes whole courts, issue to control how filers use generative AI in documents submitted to the court. They spread quickly in 2023 after Mata v. Avianca in the Southern District of New York. In that case, lawyers filed a brief citing court decisions that ChatGPT had made up, and the judge sanctioned them in June 2023. Shortly before that ruling, Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas began requiring attorneys to file a certificate. It had to state either that no generative AI was used to draft the filing or that a human had checked any AI-drafted language for accuracy against print reporters or traditional legal databases. The orders fall into a few groups. Certification orders, like Starr's, ask the filer to confirm that a person verified the content. Disclosure orders require filers to say whether they used AI, and sometimes which tool and for what. Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a June 2023 order that covered any use of AI, and critics pointed out that this could include ordinary research tools with AI features. Some orders are narrow and focus only on citation accuracy. Others deal with confidentiality and warn against putting sealed or protected material into public tools. Still others simply remind filers that existing rules apply. One common misconception is that these orders created a new duty. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 already requires that legal contentions be supported by existing law and that the person signing made a reasonable inquiry, and state courts have similar rules. For that reason, some courts decided AI-specific rules were unnecessary. The Fifth Circuit, for example, considered an AI certification rule and declined to adopt it in 2024. A second misconception is that there is one national standard. Requirements vary, so compliance means checking the judge's individual practices, the local rules and any case-specific orders before every filing. Courts have kept sanctioning fabricated citations under ordinary rules, whether or not an AI order exists.
Impact stratégique
Risques et sécurité
Les dommages catastrophiques et quotidiens causés par l’IA dépendent tous deux de la personne qui comprend les risques et qui peut agir.
Décisions plus claires
Les connaissances du public et des professionnels déterminent si une politique de sécurité forte est politiquement possible.
Passer à travers le battage médiatique
Des explications claires réduisent la capture par le battage médiatique, les relations publiques en laboratoire et le théâtre d'éthique vague.
The Future of Judges' Standing Orders on AI in Court Filings
Judge-by-judge orders may be merged into local rules or court-wide policies, which would reduce the patchwork lawyers have to track now. As AI becomes part of mainstream research and word-processing software, a simple question like "did you use AI" means less. Courts may therefore move toward asking filers to confirm verification rather than to disclose tools. Some state court systems have also begun adopting policies on how judges and court staff themselves may use AI. Whatever form the rules take, the core obligation will probably stay the same: the person who signs a filing is responsible for its accuracy. The practical skills that last are careful checking of each judge's requirements and rigorous citation verification.
Mise en œuvre dans le monde réel
A litigator with a case in a federal court in Texas checks the assigned judge's page, finds an AI certification requirement, and attaches a signed certificate saying every citation was checked against a primary source.
A firm keeps a docket tracker with a column for each judge's AI order, so an associate filing in a new court sees whether disclosure, certification or nothing is required.
A self-represented tenant who used a chatbot to organize an answer to an eviction complaint reads the court's AI notice and adds a short statement that AI helped with drafting and that she checked the content.
Under a protective order, a paralegal keeps confidential deposition excerpts out of a public chatbot, because the judge's order specifically warns against entering protected material into AI tools.
Risques et garde-fous
Traiter le risque existentiel comme de la science-fiction alors que les capacités s’accroissent.
Confondre sécurité des produits de surface et alignement sous haute autonomie.
Laisser le public non anglophone et non expert avec uniquement des sources de mauvaise qualité.
Feuille de route de mise en œuvre
Séparez les dommages causés aux produits, leur mauvaise utilisation et les risques de perte de contrôle/désalignement.
Demandez quelles preuves pourraient changer votre point de vue sur les délais et la gravité.
Préférez les sources primaires et les évaluations concrètes aux allégations marketing.
Identifiez une voie d’action : carrière, politique, financement ou compétences – et pas seulement la sensibilisation.
Continuez à explorer
Free newsletter
Get the daily AI briefing
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the Judges' Standing Orders on AI in Court Filings quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
Questions fréquemment posées
What is Judges' Standing Orders on AI in Court Filings?
Judges' standing orders on AI are court instructions that require lawyers and self-represented parties to disclose generative AI use in filings, certify that a human checked AI-assisted content, or both. They matter because the rules differ from judge to judge, and breaking one can bring sanctions, damage credibility with the court, and harm the client.
Which 2023 case, in which lawyers cited decisions that ChatGPT had invented, set off the spread of AI standing orders?
In Mata v. Avianca, in the Southern District of New York, lawyers filed a brief with made-up citations and were sanctioned in June 2023. Judges began issuing AI orders around that time.
What did Judge Brantley Starr's 2023 order in the Northern District of Texas require attorneys to file?
Starr's order was a certification order. Filers had to confirm either that they did not use generative AI or that a person had verified any AI-drafted content against traditional sources.
Why did critics say Judge Michael Baylson's June 2023 order was too broad?
Baylson's disclosure order covered AI generally, not just generative drafting tools. Critics said that could reach everyday research software with AI features.
Why have some courts decided AI-specific rules are unnecessary?
Rule 11 and similar state rules already require a reasonable inquiry and legal contentions supported by law. Fabricated citations violate those rules regardless of the tool used.
What did the Fifth Circuit do with its proposed AI certification rule?
The Fifth Circuit considered an AI-specific certification rule and decided in 2024 not to adopt it, reasoning that existing rules were enough.
Continuez à apprendre
Guides associés
Plus de guides sélectionnés pour ce sujet