Does Georgia require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No

Does Georgia require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. Georgia has no formal rule, no standing order, and no pending rulemaking on attorney AI disclosure. But the pressure is building — and one Court of Appeals incident in July 2025 put the state's AI problem on full display.

The Georgia Court of Appeals vacated an order after discovering it relied on AI-invented case law, calling itself 'troubled by bogus cases.' That phrase — from an appellate court, in a published decision — signals that Georgia's patience with AI-generated fabrications is running thin. No rule exists yet, but the ground is shifting.

The Court of Appeals Incident That Changed the Conversation

In July 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated an order after identifying that the underlying briefing cited AI-fabricated case law. The court's language was pointed: it described itself as 'troubled by bogus cases' appearing in filings before it. This wasn't a trial court admonishment — it was an appellate court publicly flagging the problem in a way that creates persuasive authority across the state. The incident didn't produce a new rule, but it put every Georgia attorney on notice that appellate courts are watching for AI-generated fabrications.

Georgia's Current Regulatory Landscape

As of early 2026, Georgia has no formal court rule, administrative order, or State Bar opinion specifically addressing AI use in legal practice. The Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct haven't been amended to address AI. The State Bar of Georgia hasn't issued a formal ethics opinion on AI in legal practice. No committee or task force has been publicly announced to study the issue. Georgia is in the 'no rule' category — but the Court of Appeals incident demonstrates that courts aren't waiting for rules to act when AI-fabricated content appears.

How Existing Rules Apply to AI Use in Georgia

Georgia attorneys using AI are governed by the same professional conduct rules that apply to all legal work. Rule 1.1 (competence) requires understanding the tools you use, including their failure modes. Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) prohibits citing cases that don't exist, regardless of how the fake citation was generated. Rule 5.3 (supervision) makes attorneys responsible for work product even when tasks are delegated to non-lawyer tools. The Court of Appeals' 'bogus cases' language effectively put teeth on these existing rules by signaling that AI-related violations will be treated seriously.

How Georgia Differs from Federal Courts in the State

Federal courts in Georgia have been more proactive. The Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) has seen individual judge orders addressing AI in filings. The Middle and Southern Districts have their own approaches. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in Atlanta, has also addressed AI use. Georgia state courts have no equivalent requirements. For Atlanta-based firms that regularly practice in both state and federal court, this creates a compliance gap: federal filings may require AI disclosure while state filings in the same case type don't.

What's Likely Coming in Georgia

The Court of Appeals incident creates momentum for formal action. When an appellate court publishes language about 'bogus cases,' it typically precedes rulemaking or at least formal guidance. The most likely paths forward: the Georgia Supreme Court could form a committee to study AI in courts (following the Hawaii and California model), the State Bar could issue an ethics opinion applying existing rules to AI use, or individual trial courts could issue standing orders requiring disclosure. Managing partners in Georgia should prepare as if rules are coming — because after that appellate opinion, they probably are.

The Bottom Line: Georgia has no formal AI disclosure rule, but the Court of Appeals' July 2025 decision vacating an order over AI-fabricated citations and calling out 'bogus cases' signals that formal regulation is likely coming — prepare now.