Ai Disclosure Template Court Filing

Here's the certification language you need for AI disclosure in federal court filings -- copy it, customize it, and attach it to your next filing. Most courts following the Starr model require a brief attestation identifying AI tools used and certifying human verification. Below are templates for the three most common scenarios: full disclosure, limited-use disclosure, and a no-AI-used certification.

These templates are based on the disclosure frameworks adopted by 58.3% of federal district courts as of March 2026. They comply with the certify-disclose-verify standard that has become the national norm. Adapt the language to your court's specific standing order, but these cover the core requirements every judge is looking for.

Full AI Disclosure Template

Use this when AI tools were used for research, drafting, or analysis that materially contributed to the filing:

CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Pursuant to [Court Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned counsel hereby certifies as follows:

1. Generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this [filing type]. Specifically, [Tool Name, e.g., "Lexis+ AI" or "Claude"] was used for [specific purpose, e.g., "legal research and initial draft generation" or "citation verification and analysis of case law"].

2. All content generated by artificial intelligence was reviewed, verified, and edited by a licensed attorney. All legal citations have been independently confirmed against primary sources using [Westlaw/Lexis/other]. All factual assertions have been verified for accuracy.

3. The undersigned attorney takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing, including any content initially generated or assisted by artificial intelligence tools.

Dated: [Date] [Attorney Name, Bar Number] [Firm Name]

Limited-Use AI Disclosure Template

Use this when AI assisted with a narrow task -- like summarizing a deposition or organizing research -- but didn't generate the legal arguments:

CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Pursuant to [Court Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that artificial intelligence tools were used in a limited capacity during the preparation of this [filing type]. Specifically, [Tool Name] was used for [narrow purpose, e.g., "summarizing deposition testimony" or "organizing research notes"].

No AI-generated text appears verbatim in this filing. All legal arguments, citations, and factual assertions were independently developed and verified by the undersigned attorney. The undersigned takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing.

Dated: [Date] [Attorney Name, Bar Number] [Firm Name]

No-AI-Used Certification Template

Some courts require an affirmative statement even when AI was not used:

CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Pursuant to [Court Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the research, drafting, or preparation of this [filing type]. All legal research was conducted using traditional legal research platforms, and all content was drafted by the undersigned attorney or members of the legal team under the undersigned's supervision.

Dated: [Date] [Attorney Name, Bar Number] [Firm Name]

Note: This certification is required even for filings that didn't involve AI. Courts want the affirmative statement, not silence.

What Every Certification Must Include

Regardless of which template you use, your AI disclosure must cover five elements that courts consistently expect:

1. Tool Identification. Name the specific AI tool. "AI" is too vague. Courts want to know if you used ChatGPT, Claude, Lexis+ AI, CoCounsel, or another platform. The distinction matters because enterprise legal AI tools have different reliability profiles than consumer chatbots.

2. Purpose Description. State what the AI was used for. Research? Drafting? Citation checking? Summarization? Be specific. "Used AI for this filing" tells the judge nothing.

3. Verification Statement. Certify that a human attorney reviewed and verified all AI output. This is the core of every standing order -- the court needs to know a licensed professional vouches for the content.

4. Source Confirmation. State that citations were checked against primary sources. This is what distinguishes competent AI use from the Mata v. Avianca disaster.

5. Responsibility Acceptance. The signing attorney takes full responsibility. AI doesn't have a bar license. You do.

Common Mistakes That Get Certifications Challenged

Vague tool descriptions. Saying "AI-assisted research tools" when you used ChatGPT Free is misleading. Courts distinguish between consumer and enterprise tools. Be honest about what you used.

Boilerplate without substance. Don't file the same generic certification on every motion without actually checking whether AI was used by your team. If an associate used Claude to draft a section and you certify no AI was used, that's a false statement to the court.

Missing the verification step. Certifying that AI was used without confirming you verified the output defeats the purpose. The verification statement is not optional -- it's the entire point.

Not checking your court's specific requirements. The templates above cover the national standard, but your court may require additional elements. Check the AI Disclosure Directory for your specific jurisdiction's requirements before filing.

The Bottom Line: Copy the template that matches your use case, fill in the tool name and purpose, certify you verified everything, and file it -- disclosure takes 30 seconds and eliminates 100% of the non-disclosure risk.