**Judge Michael J

Judge Michael J. Newman of the Southern District of Ohio didn't just regulate AI—he banned it. His standing order, effective July 14, 2023, flatly prohibits the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to his court. No disclosure form. No certification. Just a straight prohibition with sanctions including striking pleadings, economic penalties, contempt, and case dismissal.

This isn't a theoretical concern in Judge Newman's courtroom. In Whaley v. Experian Information Solutions, a plaintiff admitted to using AI to prepare filings, which produced hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases. Judge Newman's order exists precisely because of scenarios like that one—and he's made clear he won't tolerate it.

What Judge Newman's AI Ban Actually Says

Judge Newman's AI provision is part of his broader Standing Order Governing Civil Cases and states: "No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence ('AI') in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court." The language is absolute. There's no carve-out for "just using it as a starting point" or "only for brainstorming." If AI touched your filing, you're in violation. The order applies to both attorneys and pro se litigants—one of the few AI orders that explicitly covers self-represented parties. Violations can result in the pleading being struck, economic sanctions, contempt of court, or dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Westlaw and Lexis Exception

Judge Newman's order draws a clear line between generative AI and traditional legal research tools. The order explicitly states it does not apply to information gathered from legal search engines such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines such as Google or Bing. This distinction matters because many attorneys worry about whether AI-enhanced features in Westlaw or Lexis trigger disclosure obligations. In Judge Newman's courtroom, the answer is straightforward: traditional search tools are fine. Generative AI that creates text, drafts arguments, or produces citations is not. The boundary is between tools that find existing information and tools that generate new content.

The Whaley v. Experian Case: Why This Order Matters

The real-world consequences of AI use in Judge Newman's courtroom became clear in Whaley v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The plaintiff admitted to using AI to prepare case filings, and the AI-generated content included hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases. This case demonstrated exactly the risk Judge Newman's standing order was designed to prevent. The Whaley case is particularly instructive because it involved a pro se litigant—someone without legal training who relied on AI to draft filings and had no independent way to verify the output. Both parties and their counsel have an affirmative obligation to immediately inform the court if they discover that AI was used to prepare any filing.

How Judge Newman Compares to Other Federal Judges

Judge Newman's approach sits at the strictest end of the federal judiciary's AI spectrum. Most judges—like Judge Brantley Starr in N.D. Texas or Judge Beetlestone in E.D. Pennsylvania—allow AI use with disclosure and certification requirements. Judge Newman bans it entirely. Among the roughly 40+ federal judges who have issued AI-related orders, outright bans like Newman's are the minority. The majority framework is "use it, disclose it, verify it." Newman's framework is "don't use it at all." This makes his courtroom one of the highest-risk environments for attorneys who have integrated AI tools into their practice—even routine AI-assisted drafting could trigger sanctions.

Practical Steps for Attorneys Appearing Before Judge Newman

Step 1: Remove AI from your workflow entirely for any filing going to Judge Newman. This means no ChatGPT, no Claude, no Harvey, no CoCounsel for drafting, editing, or research that generates text. Step 2: Audit your firm's processes—if associates or paralegals routinely use AI tools, they need to know this judge is different. Step 3: If you discover that a team member used AI on a filing, you have an obligation to immediately inform the court. Don't try to hide it. Step 4: Traditional legal research tools (Westlaw, Lexis, Google) remain permitted. Step 5: If you're transferring a case into Judge Newman's courtroom, review all prior filings to ensure none were AI-assisted.

The Bottom Line: Judge Newman's courtroom is a no-AI zone. Do not use generative AI for any filing submitted to his court. If you discover AI was used, disclose it immediately. The penalties—struck pleadings, sanctions, contempt, dismissal—aren't hypothetical.