Judge Evelyn Padin

Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey has established some of the most detailed AI disclosure requirements among federal judges, going beyond the basic yes/no certification that many courts adopted. Her order reflects a thorough, compliance-oriented approach that treats AI disclosure as a substantive professional responsibility obligation—not a formality.

If you're filing in Judge Padin's courtroom, prepare to provide specific, detailed information about your AI use. Vague disclosures won't satisfy her requirements, and the District of New Jersey's legal community has taken notice of her rigorous approach.

Judge Padin's Detailed AI Disclosure Requirements

Judge Padin's standing order is among the most comprehensive in the federal judiciary. Attorneys must disclose the use of generative AI, specify which tool was used, describe the nature and extent of the AI's contribution, and certify that all AI-generated content has been verified for accuracy. What distinguishes her order is the level of detail required. While some judges accept a simple certification, Judge Padin wants to understand how AI fit into the attorney's workflow. Did AI draft an entire section? Generate an outline? Suggest citations? She wants to know, and the disclosure must reflect this specificity.

The District of New Jersey Context

The District of New Jersey handles a significant volume of pharmaceutical litigation, patent cases, and complex commercial disputes—practice areas where AI-assisted drafting has become increasingly common. Judge Padin's order reflects an understanding that AI tools are being used across her docket, and that blanket prohibitions aren't practical. Instead, she's opted for a transparency framework that lets attorneys use AI responsibly while ensuring the court knows what role AI played. Within the district, her approach has influenced other judges, though New Jersey hasn't yet adopted a uniform district-wide AI policy.

What Makes Judge Padin's Requirements Stricter

Three things set Judge Padin's order apart. First, the specificity requirement—naming the tool and describing its role isn't optional. Second, the scope—her order covers not just briefs and motions but extends to all filings submitted to the court. Third, the verification standard—she expects attorneys to demonstrate a genuine verification process, not just check a box. Attorneys who've filed before her report that the order is taken seriously and that compliance isn't treated as a formality. The practical effect is that legal teams need internal protocols for tracking and documenting AI use from the start of a matter.

Compliance Protocol for Judge Padin's Courtroom

Step 1: Implement an AI use tracking system at the matter level from day one. Step 2: When using AI, document which tool, what prompts, and what output was incorporated. Step 3: Verify every citation and factual assertion through independent research. Step 4: Draft your disclosure statement with specificity—tool name, version if known, nature of use, extent of contribution, and verification steps taken. Step 5: Review your disclosure against Judge Padin's standing order requirements before filing. Step 6: Ensure all contributing attorneys and staff understand the tracking and disclosure obligations.

Judge Padin and the Third Circuit AI Landscape

Judge Padin's order contributes to an emerging AI-aware judicial culture in the Third Circuit. With Judge Baylson in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Judge Jordan at the Third Circuit appellate level, the circuit has multiple judges who've addressed AI disclosure at different levels of the federal court system. Judge Padin's contribution is the emphasis on detail and specificity in disclosure. Her approach may influence the eventual development of a Third Circuit-wide or district-wide AI policy. For practitioners who appear regularly in New Jersey federal court, her requirements represent the emerging standard.

The Bottom Line: Before filing in Judge Padin's courtroom, implement internal AI tracking protocols, prepare disclosures that name the specific tool and describe exactly how it was used, verify everything through traditional research, and treat the disclosure requirement as a substantive professional obligation—not a checkbox.