What the courts now require when AI touches a filing.

No statewide Alabama court rule, order, or policy addressing generative AI in filings was found; general Rule 11 signature duties apply.

No statewide Alaska court rule or order addressing generative AI in filings was found.

ACJA § 1-509 binds only court personnel (must review AI output); the Supreme Court AI Steering Committee's best practices advise lawyers to check every material proposition and citation but are non-binding.

Covers confidential and sealed court data entered into generative AI tools and bars court staff from exposing internal court data to public AI models; it does not address the accuracy of filings.

From Jan 1, 2027, attorneys who use generative AI must take reasonable steps to verify its output, including every case and statutory citation, and must disclose AI use to the court for every document they submit.

Professional-conduct commentary says AI use does not diminish lawyers' duties and flags rules it implicates (incl. 3.1, 3.3); there is no filing-specific verification or disclosure rule.

Anyone who uses generative AI on a filed document must independently verify every citation, authority and piece of evidence it produced; signing certifies compliance, and failure can bring sanctions up to nonsuit or default.

Governs judicial officers and court personnel only, making each authorized user responsible for GenAI output; imposes no duty on attorneys or filers.

Governs AI use by DC Courts judicial officers, employees, contractors and volunteers only; no rule yet requires filers to disclose or verify AI use.

Every signer, attorney or unrepresented party, represents that the legal authorities cited exist and are accurately cited; courts may sanction filings that don't, and the rule replaces circuit-level AI disclosure and certification orders.

No statewide court rule or order specifically governing attorneys' or filers' use of generative AI in filings was found; requirements exist only in individual judges' standing orders.

No statewide AI filing rule was found; the Judiciary's AI committee concluded HRCP Rule 11 is adequate, and a proposed AI-use declaration order is under Supreme Court consideration.

No statewide court rule or order addressing generative AI in filings was found; general signing rules (e.g., I.A.R. 11.2) apply.

Statewide Supreme Court policy permits AI use, says disclosure should not be required in pleadings, and directs all users to thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it; no certification is required.

An attorney's signature (or a self-represented party's under T.R. 11.1) certifies, among other things, that any cited legal authority is authentic, expressly including filings prepared with AI assistance; citing fictitious authority can support an abusive-litigant finding under T.R. 11.2.

Applies only to judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, who may use AI tools on judicial case information only if the tools are approved by a new judicial-branch committee; it imposes no duties on attorneys or filers.

No statewide AI filing rule was found; the Kansas Supreme Court has only created an Ad Hoc AI Committee to recommend policies, including for attorneys.

No statewide AI filing rule or Supreme Court order was found; AI verification and certification requirements exist only in a few Supreme Court-approved local rules.

Non-binding guidelines aimed mainly at judges and court personnel; no statewide rule requires attorneys to disclose AI use or certify verification in filings.

No Maine statewide court rule, administrative order, or statute governing generative AI use in court filings was found; general signature/candor duties apply.

No adopted statewide rule was found; a Rules Committee-approved amendment to Rule 1-311 would make an attorney's signature certify that each cited authority was confirmed to exist, but it has not been transmitted in a published report or adopted by the Supreme Court of Maryland.

Interim guidelines apply only to judges, clerks and other court personnel (who must verify GenAI output); no statewide rule governs attorneys' or litigants' AI use in filings.

No Michigan Supreme Court rule, ADM order, or SCAO policy governing AI use in filings was found; MCR 1.109(E) signature and sanction duties apply.

Official court FAQ states no court rule requires disclosure of AI use in filings, but filers remain responsible for accuracy and should confirm all facts, citations and legal references before filing; individual judges may order disclosure.

No Mississippi Supreme Court rule, order, or statute governing AI use in court filings was found.

The court's site could not be checked directly; this entry rests on secondary sources as of October 2026.

No Supreme Court of Missouri rule on AI in filings was found; the current signing rule (Rule 55.03, eff. 2025-07-01) contains no AI or citation-verification language.

No Montana Supreme Court rule or statute governing AI use in court filings was found; only certain district courts have local AI disclosure/certification rules.

The court's site could not be checked directly; this entry rests on secondary sources as of October 2026.

No statewide Nebraska court rule, order, or notice specifically governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found; existing Rules of Professional Conduct and sanctions authority apply.

No Nevada Supreme Court rule or ADKT order governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found.

No New Hampshire Supreme Court rule or order governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found.

The court's site could not be checked directly; this entry rests on secondary sources as of October 2026.

Advisory guidelines say existing Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to check and verify all AI-generated information; no court rule requires AI disclosure or certification in filings.

No New Mexico Supreme Court rule governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found; a Supreme Court committee is drafting guidelines.

Statewide policy: AI use is permitted and filers need not disclose it; each court may adopt the Appendix A model rule, under which signing an AI-assisted paper certifies a review confirming it contains no fabricated content.

No North Carolina Supreme Court rule or statewide order governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found; the issue is left to local districts.

The court's site could not be checked directly; this entry rests on secondary sources as of October 2026.

Official notice: AI use is allowed and need not be disclosed solely because AI was used; filers stay fully responsible under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 and must independently confirm citations, with N.D.R.Ct. 11.5 remedies for noncompliant filings.

No Ohio Supreme Court rule governing attorneys' use of generative AI in filings was found; the only statewide AI rule restricts courts' own use of AI for interpretation and translation.

In the Court of Criminal Appeals only: when generative AI is used to draft a document for filing in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure any AI-produced or AI-modified portion has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document; no disclosure required.

Proposed: a person signing a document filed in an Oregon appellate court would certify it contains no fabricated authority (fake citations, quotations, propositions of law or facts, whether AI-created or otherwise).

Governs judges and Unified Judicial System personnel using GenAI on court technology (personnel are responsible for accuracy of GenAI output); imposes no requirement on attorneys or litigants filing documents.

Advisory guidelines (not binding) say lawyers must review GAI output for accuracy and verify citations and statements of fact or law before filing; Rule 1.1 Comment [6] amended on technology competence.

Governs how judges and Judicial Branch employees may use generative AI; it places no duty on attorneys or litigants filing documents.

No statewide court rule or order governing attorneys' or filers' use of generative AI in court filings was found.

The court's site could not be checked directly; this entry rests on secondary sources as of October 2026.

No statewide court rule, order, or policy governing attorneys' or filers' use of generative AI in court filings was found.

Proposed: by signing a court filing, the signer would represent they reviewed it and verified its accuracy, including that legal citations, quotations, and holdings are not fabricated, with sanctions for violations.

Governs generative AI use by court personnel for court-related work or on court devices (unlisted tools prohibited); no statewide rule on attorneys' or filers' AI use.

Statewide policy says court users, including self-represented litigants, are expected to check the accuracy of AI output they submit; it does not require disclosure or a certification.

Statewide rules govern generative AI use only by the Judicial System and on court-issued devices; there is no statewide rule on AI in attorneys' or litigants' filings.

No statewide Washington court rule or Supreme Court order governing generative AI in court filings was found.

No statewide West Virginia court rule or order governing generative AI in attorneys' or litigants' filings was found.

No statewide Wisconsin rule governing generative AI in court filings was found; the one petition proposing such a rule has been withdrawn.

No statewide Wyoming court rule or order governing generative AI in court filings was found.

Filers using generative AI must file Form CSD 5013, which lists the AI program(s) used and certifies the paper was checked for factual and legal accuracy using reliable means outside of AI.

Every filing must include an AI certification of use or non-use of generative AI, signed by all drafters; if AI was used, it must certify human review for accuracy and that all citations are to real authority.

No AI disclosure is required any more; the judge treats the Rule 11 signature as a representation that counsel personally read every cited authority and confirmed it exists, and points to the Illinois Supreme Court's AI policy.

A party that uses generative AI for any part of a filing must attach a separate declaration that discloses the AI use and certifies the filer reviewed the source material and verified the AI content is accurate and complies with Rule 11.

Filing any document is deemed to certify that every authority cited exists, is accurately cited and accurately represented, and that quotations are verbatim; humans must verify, and no separate AI certificate is required.