Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit is the largest federal circuit in the country — and when it comes to AI disclosure, it's also the most complex. Covering Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, this circuit spans Silicon Valley (where the AI tools are built) to rural courts that might see ten AI-related filings a year. The regulatory landscape is just as diverse.

California's Rule 10.430 is the most significant state-level AI disclosure regulation in the nation. Oregon has developed a unique per-item sanctions formula for AI errors. Hawaii has taken the opposite approach, declaring existing rules sufficient. Managing partners with Ninth Circuit exposure need jurisdiction-specific strategies — a one-size-fits-all approach won't work here.

Ninth Circuit's Approach to AI Regulation

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't adopted a circuit-wide AI disclosure mandate, which isn't surprising given the circuit's size and diversity. Any circuit-level rule would need to work for both the Central District of California (the nation's largest district by case volume) and the District of Guam. Instead, the circuit has allowed district courts and state courts to develop approaches tailored to their local conditions. The appellate court has addressed AI tangentially in published opinions — particularly in technology-sector cases involving AI companies — but hasn't issued a direct ruling on attorney AI disclosure obligations.

California Rule 10.430: The National Benchmark

California's Rule 10.430 is the most comprehensive state-level AI disclosure regulation for legal practice in the United States. The rule requires attorneys to disclose when generative AI materially contributed to court filings and to certify that AI-generated content has been verified for accuracy. It applies across all California state courts and has influenced federal judges in the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California. What makes Rule 10.430 significant isn't just its scope — it's its specificity. The rule defines what constitutes 'material contribution,' establishes clear certification language, and creates a framework that other states are using as a model. For any firm with California litigation exposure, Rule 10.430 compliance isn't optional.

Oregon's Per-Item Sanctions Formula

Oregon has developed one of the most innovative approaches to AI sanctions in the country: a per-item sanctions formula that calculates penalties based on the number of AI-generated errors in a filing. Rather than imposing a single lump-sum sanction, Oregon courts have assessed penalties on a per-citation or per-assertion basis. This approach creates a proportional system where a filing with one hallucinated citation faces a modest penalty, but a filing riddled with fabricated authorities faces escalating costs. The per-item formula gives attorneys a concrete financial incentive to verify every AI-generated assertion individually. It's the most economically rational sanctions approach any court has adopted and could become a national model.

Hawaii, Washington, and Other Ninth Circuit Jurisdictions

Hawaii has taken a deliberately minimalist approach, with its judiciary declaring that existing rules of professional conduct are sufficient to address AI use in legal practice. This mirrors the Seventh Circuit's philosophy but from a state court perspective. Washington state has been more active, with King County Superior Court and several federal judges in the Western District of Washington (Seattle) adopting AI disclosure requirements — not surprising given the state's role as a tech industry hub. Arizona, Nevada, and Idaho have limited AI-specific judicial activity. Alaska and Montana have minimal AI court policy development, consistent with their lower litigation volumes. The territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands haven't addressed AI disclosure formally.

Compliance Strategy for Ninth Circuit's Diverse Landscape

Given the Ninth Circuit's complexity, here's the tiered approach: First, treat California Rule 10.430 as the mandatory floor for all California filings — state and federal. Second, for Oregon filings, implement per-citation verification checklists that track every AI-generated assertion, because the per-item sanctions formula means each unverified citation is a separate liability. Third, for Washington filings, check county-level and individual judge requirements, particularly in King County and the Western District. Fourth, for all other Ninth Circuit jurisdictions, adopt voluntary disclosure even where not required — the circuit's California-influenced judicial culture means expectations are higher here than in other circuits. Fifth, firms with multi-state Ninth Circuit practices should create jurisdiction-specific AI compliance checklists rather than trying to apply a single standard across eleven different jurisdictions.

The Bottom Line: The Ninth Circuit is the most complex AI disclosure landscape in federal courts. California Rule 10.430 sets the national benchmark, Oregon's per-item sanctions formula creates proportional accountability, and the circuit's eleven jurisdictions each require jurisdiction-specific compliance strategies. If you're filing here, one-size-fits-all won't cut it.