Court AI rules for self-represented litigants
Many courts now have rules about using AI tools like ChatGPT to prepare court papers. Some require you to say you used AI. Others only require you to check everything you file. Find your court below, then read the official order before you file. This directory is legal information, not legal advice.
New to using AI on your case? Start with our free lesson: Using AI on Your Own Case Without Getting Sanctioned.
- U.S. District Court, District of Kansas — In effect. The District of Kansas lets litigants use AI but holds every filer, including people representing themselves, responsible for checking all AI-assisted content. The court can strike a filing that
- U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia — In effect. The Middle District of Georgia urges pro se parties to be cautious with AI tools such as ChatGPT. Using AI does not reduce your responsibility for accurate facts and law, and errors can lead to Rule
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — In effect. The Northern District of California permits AI use in self-represented cases, but you remain responsible for everything you file. The court's guidance page answers common questions, including
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa — In effect. The Southern District of Iowa does not prohibit AI use and does not currently require disclosure. Every litigant is personally responsible for verifying AI-generated content, and failures can lead to
- Florida state courts (statewide) — In effect. Florida replaced a patchwork of local AI disclosure orders with one statewide rule. You do not have to disclose AI use in Florida state courts, but your signature now represents that every legal
- New York State Unified Court System (statewide) — In effect. New York's statewide policy is that attorneys and parties should not be prohibited from using AI to prepare court papers, as long as they meet their existing duties. Individual courts may adopt a
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division — In effect. This standing order requires every party who uses AI to draft a pleading, including self-represented parties, to file a certificate disclosing the AI use and certifying independent verification.
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division (Judge Ernest Gonzalez) — In effect. Judge Ernest Gonzalez extended his AI certificate requirement to all cases, civil and criminal, and to self-represented parties. The order includes a sample certificate you can follow.
- District Courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio, and Victoria Counties, Texas — In effect. These six counties share a standing order covering AI use by attorneys and self-represented litigants. A signed certification form confirms that AI-generated content was checked by a person against
- Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Miami-Dade) — Superseded. Miami-Dade's AI disclosure order required attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose AI use and certify accuracy on every AI-assisted filing. Florida's Supreme Court replaced local orders