How Disclose Ai Federal Court Filing

To disclose AI use in a federal court filing, check your district's local rules and your assigned judge's standing orders, then include a certification statement identifying the AI tool used, describing how it was used, and confirming that a licensed attorney verified all content. There's no uniform federal rule — disclosure requirements vary by district and by judge.

As of 2026, over 30 federal judges have issued standing orders requiring AI disclosure, and several districts have adopted local rules. The safest approach is to disclose even when not explicitly required — no attorney has ever been sanctioned for disclosing AI use, but several have been sanctioned for concealing it.

Step 1: Check Local Rules and Standing Orders

Before filing anything, check three sources:

District local rules. Several federal districts have adopted formal rules requiring AI disclosure. The Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, and others have district-wide requirements. These are published on the court's website under local rules or general orders.

Judge-specific standing orders. Over 30 federal judges have issued individual standing orders on AI disclosure. Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) was first in June 2023, requiring all counsel to certify either that no AI was used or that a human verified all AI-assisted content. Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa.) requires disclosure of AI use in any filing. These standing orders are on each judge's page on the court website or on PACER.

Circuit guidance. The Fifth Circuit issued guidance on AI use in appellate filings. Other circuits have addressed it in varying degrees of formality. Check your circuit's website for any administrative orders or guidance memos.

If you can't find specific requirements, that doesn't mean you're off the hook. Rule 11 requires that every filing be supported by reasonable inquiry. If AI-generated content contains errors you should have caught, the absence of a specific AI disclosure rule doesn't protect you from sanctions.

Step 2: Identify the Right Certification Language

The certification language varies by court, but the elements are consistent across jurisdictions. A compliant disclosure addresses:

What tool was used: "The undersigned certifies that [Claude AI / ChatGPT / Harvey AI / specific tool] was used in the preparation of this filing."

How it was used: "AI was used to [draft initial research memoranda / identify relevant case law / assist with document review / generate first-draft arguments] in connection with this filing."

What human oversight occurred: "All AI-generated content has been reviewed and verified by a licensed attorney. All legal citations have been independently confirmed against primary sources through [Westlaw / Lexis]. The undersigned takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing."

Some courts want the certification as a separate document. Others accept it as a footnote or in the signature block. Check the specific format required by your court. When no format is specified, a footnote on the first page or a paragraph in the signature block are both defensible approaches.

Step 3: Template Disclosure Language

Here's certification language that covers the major requirements across federal courts:

Broad certification (covers most standing orders):

"CERTIFICATION REGARDING AI-ASSISTED TOOLS: The undersigned counsel certifies that generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this filing, specifically [tool name(s)]. AI tools were used for [specific purposes: e.g., initial legal research, draft preparation, citation identification]. All content, legal analysis, and citations have been independently reviewed and verified by the undersigned, a licensed attorney admitted to practice before this Court. All citations have been confirmed against primary legal sources. The undersigned takes full responsibility for all content in this filing and certifies compliance with all applicable rules of professional conduct."

No-AI certification (for courts requiring negative certification):

"CERTIFICATION REGARDING AI-ASSISTED TOOLS: The undersigned counsel certifies that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the substantive preparation of this filing, including but not limited to legal research, drafting, or citation generation."

Note: Using Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, Lexis+ AI, or similar integrated legal research tools may or may not require disclosure depending on the court's definition of "generative AI." When in doubt, disclose.

Step 4: Common Mistakes to Avoid

Don't use vague language. "AI may have been used" or "various tools assisted in preparation" doesn't satisfy any court's disclosure requirement. Be specific about the tool and the usage.

Don't over-disclose to the point of absurdity. Spell-check AI, grammar tools, and basic word processing features don't require disclosure. The courts are targeting generative AI — tools that produce substantive legal content, research, or analysis.

Don't certify verification you didn't do. If you state that all citations were independently verified and a hallucinated citation is later discovered, you've made a false certification to a federal court. That's worse than not disclosing AI use at all. Only certify what you actually did.

Don't assume one court's requirements apply everywhere. Judge Starr's standing order applies in his courtroom, not in the Southern District of New York. Every new case means checking the specific requirements for that district and judge.

Don't forget to update. Courts are adopting new AI rules regularly. A rule that didn't exist when you started a case may be in effect by the time you file your next motion. Check requirements before every filing, not just at case initiation.

The Disclosure Landscape in 2026

The trend is unmistakable: more courts are requiring disclosure, not fewer. The Judicial Conference of the United States has been evaluating uniform AI disclosure rules for federal courts since 2024. Several proposed rules would standardize disclosure requirements across all federal districts.

Until uniform rules are adopted, the landscape remains fragmented. Some courts require affirmative disclosure whenever AI is used. Others require negative certification (certifying AI was NOT used). Others have no requirement at all. The safest practitioners treat disclosure as default behavior — include it unless there's a specific reason not to.

State courts are following federal courts' lead. California, New Jersey, Florida, and multiple other states have adopted or proposed AI disclosure requirements for court filings. Attorneys practicing in multiple jurisdictions need to track requirements across all of them.

Pro tip: Create a disclosure checklist for every new case. When you get a case assignment, check: (1) district local rules on AI, (2) assigned judge's standing orders, (3) any circuit-level guidance, (4) state court requirements if the case involves state proceedings. Save the applicable requirements to the case file. This takes 15 minutes at case opening and prevents disclosure failures throughout the case.

The Bottom Line: Check your district's local rules and your judge's standing orders, use specific certification language identifying the tool and confirming human verification, and when no rule exists, disclose anyway — overcompliance costs nothing, undercompliance costs careers.