AI Disclosure Rules in the District of Puerto Rico

The District of Puerto Rico, based in San Juan, is the federal court for the largest U.S. territory by population — over 3.2 million residents. This is a fully bilingual court operating in both English and Spanish, handling a substantial caseload that includes admiralty, drug trafficking, civil rights, insurance disputes, and complex commercial litigation. The DPR is part of the 1st Circuit and functions with the same authority as any mainland federal district, but its unique linguistic and cultural context adds distinct considerations for AI use in legal filings.

AI Disclosure Rules in the District of Puerto Rico

The District of Puerto Rico has no district-wide AI disclosure rule. No local rule, no administrative order, no formal guidance has been issued on generative AI use in filings. This places the DPR among the 41.7% of federal courts identified in the March 2026 NYC Bar study as lacking meaningful AI governance.

The DPR sits within the 1st Circuit, which also includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. None of these districts have adopted district-wide AI rules either, making the 1st Circuit one of the quieter circuits on this issue. But the absence of formal rules does not mean absence of risk.

The bilingual nature of the DPR creates a specific AI challenge that most mainland courts do not face. Attorneys regularly file documents in both English and Spanish, and AI tools — particularly generative AI trained primarily on English-language legal data — perform less reliably when working with Spanish-language legal concepts, Puerto Rico civil law traditions, or translations between the two languages. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a practical reality that increases the risk of AI-generated errors in this district.

Individual Judge Standing Orders

No judges in the District of Puerto Rico have issued individual standing orders addressing AI use in court filings. The court has a bench of active and senior judges handling a heavy caseload relative to its size, and AI governance has not been publicly prioritized.

However, over 300 federal judges nationally now have some form of AI-related order, and the trend is accelerating. Puerto Rico's federal judges are as likely as any to adopt requirements as AI use becomes more prevalent. Practitioners should check individual judge pages on the court website and monitor for updates before each filing.

Key AI Cases in DPR

The District of Puerto Rico has not produced a reported AI sanctions case. The national landmark is Mata v. Avianca (SDNY), where fabricated ChatGPT citations led to attorney sanctions. The Couvrette case imposed $109,700 in penalties. Both cases established that AI-generated errors are treated as attorney misconduct, not tool malfunction.

The DPR's diverse docket — including admiralty cases, drug conspiracy prosecutions, and insurance disputes stemming from natural disasters — involves fact-intensive litigation where citation accuracy is critical. The high volume of insurance and FEMA-related litigation following Hurricane Maria and subsequent storms makes fabricated or inaccurate citations particularly dangerous in this district.

What Attorneys in DPR Should Do

**Check your assigned judge's individual practices before filing.** The DPR court website lists standing orders by judge. Requirements can change without broad announcement, so make this a routine step.

**Be especially cautious with bilingual filings.** AI tools trained primarily on English-language legal data perform poorly with Puerto Rico's mixed legal traditions. If you are using AI to draft or translate documents that involve Puerto Rico civil code concepts, local procedural rules, or Spanish-language legal terminology, the error rate increases significantly. Have a bilingual attorney review AI-generated content thoroughly.

**Verify every citation independently.** Use Westlaw or LEXIS to confirm each case exists, check the citation format, and verify the holding. This is especially important for citations to Puerto Rico Supreme Court decisions, local statutes, and 1st Circuit opinions that AI tools may not handle accurately.

**Disclose AI use proactively.** Even without a mandate, voluntary disclosure in a footnote creates a good-faith record. In a district where no formal rule exists, transparency is your best protection against later challenges.

**Use enterprise legal AI and verify local law separately.** Consumer AI tools have minimal training on Puerto Rico-specific law, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, and local court rules. Enterprise platforms are better but still imperfect for jurisdiction-specific material. Always verify local law through Puerto Rico legal databases and primary sources.

The Bottom Line

The District of Puerto Rico has not adopted formal AI rules, and the 1st Circuit as a whole has been quiet on the issue. But the DPR faces a unique challenge: bilingual filings and a mixed common law/civil law tradition that AI tools handle poorly. The risk of AI errors here is not just about fabricated cases — it is about mistranslation, misapplication of civil law concepts, and inaccurate rendering of Puerto Rico-specific legal standards.

Do not assume that the silence on AI rules means lower expectations. The DPR's heavy caseload and sophisticated bar demand the same rigor as any mainland court — plus the added diligence that bilingual practice requires.