Judge Michael Baylson

Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was one of the earliest federal judges to require AI disclosure in court filings, issuing his standing order in June 2023. His approach was more targeted than a blanket ban—he wanted transparency about when and how AI tools contributed to legal work product.

If you're filing in Judge Baylson's courtroom, you need to understand that he treats AI disclosure as a matter of professional responsibility, not just procedural compliance. His order reflects a pragmatic acceptance that lawyers will use AI, paired with an insistence that they own what they file.

Judge Baylson's AI Disclosure Requirements

Judge Baylson's standing order, issued in June 2023, requires attorneys to disclose whether any portion of a filing was drafted with the assistance of generative AI. The disclosure must identify which AI tool was used and describe the extent of its contribution. Unlike some other judges who simply require a yes/no certification, Judge Baylson's approach demands specificity. You can't just check a box—you need to explain what the AI did and what you did to verify it. The order also requires attorneys to certify that they've reviewed AI-generated content for accuracy and that all legal citations have been verified through traditional research methods.

The E.D. Pennsylvania Context

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania hasn't adopted a uniform district-wide AI policy, which means AI disclosure requirements vary from judge to judge. Judge Baylson was among the first in the district to act, and his order influenced several colleagues. Philadelphia's legal community—home to major law firms and a heavy commercial litigation docket—took notice quickly. The district handles a significant volume of complex civil litigation, mass torts, and patent cases where AI-assisted drafting is increasingly common. Judge Baylson recognized that his courtroom was exactly the kind of environment where undisclosed AI use could create serious problems.

What Triggers the Disclosure Obligation

Any use of generative AI in preparing a filing triggers the disclosure requirement. This includes using AI to draft arguments, summarize case law, generate language for motions, or assist with legal research that gets incorporated into the filing. Basic word processing features, spell check, and grammar tools don't trigger the requirement. Neither does traditional legal research on Westlaw or Lexis. The line is drawn at generative AI—tools that create new text based on prompts. If you used ChatGPT to draft a paragraph that ended up in your brief, even if you edited it heavily, disclosure is required.

Practical Compliance for Judge Baylson's Courtroom

First, establish an internal tracking protocol for AI use on any matter assigned to Judge Baylson. Second, when filing, include a disclosure statement identifying the AI tool, the nature of its use, and the verification steps taken. Third, verify every citation independently—don't rely on AI-generated case references. Fourth, maintain documentation of your verification process in your case file. Fifth, ensure all attorneys and support staff contributing to the filing understand the disclosure obligation. Judge Baylson has shown he values transparency over perfection—honest disclosure of responsible AI use won't get you in trouble, but concealment will.

How Judge Baylson Compares to Other E.D. Pennsylvania Judges

Judge Baylson was an early mover in the Eastern District, and his order is among the more detailed in the district. Some E.D. Pennsylvania judges have adopted similar requirements, while others have yet to issue specific AI standing orders. The Third Circuit, which covers the E.D. Pennsylvania, has also begun addressing AI at the appellate level through judges like Judge Kent Jordan. If you practice regularly in the Eastern District, the safest approach is to treat Judge Baylson's requirements as your baseline for all judges—disclose AI use, verify citations, and document your process. You'll never get in trouble for over-disclosing.

The Bottom Line: Before filing in Judge Baylson's courtroom, identify every instance of AI use in your filing, prepare a specific disclosure statement naming the tool and describing its role, and verify all citations through traditional research. Transparency is your best protection.