The Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · Rules, orders and guidance

Cherokee County Superior Court AI standing order

All four judges of the Superior Court of Cherokee County, Georgia, signed a standing order requiring any attorney or self-represented party who uses AI in any capacity on a filing to name the tool and certify, under penalty of perjury, that the document was independently reviewed and every citation verified.

Primary document readStanding order entered; in effect August 21, 2026

What happened

The Superior Court of Cherokee County, Georgia, is the trial court of the Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit. Its four judges, Chief Judge David Cannon Jr. and Judges M. Anthony Baker, Shannon Wallace and Jennifer Davis, signed a standing order on August 21, 2026 titled "Standing Order Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Briefs and Proposed Orders in the Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit." The clerk's stamp shows it recorded on October 2, 2026, at Superior Book 202, pages 2268 to 2269. News coverage followed in the first week of October.

Local reporting connected the order to Payne v. State, in which the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated a Clayton County order prepared by a prosecutor who had used AI. The order itself does not mention Payne or any other case.

What was issued or decided

The order applies to all briefs, proposed orders and other written submissions on the court's criminal and civil dockets, by attorneys and self-represented litigants alike. Anyone who "uses AI in any capacity to prepare, draft or review a filing" must include, before the signature block, a statement naming the tool and two certifications made "under penalty of perjury": that the filer independently reviewed the document for accuracy, and that every citation to law, case, statute or the record "exists as cited and for the proposition cited."

Noncompliance may lead to striking the filing, sanctions, disciplinary referral or fees under O.C.G.A. section 9-15-14. The order adds: "Mistake, lack of technical expertise, or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses for noncompliance." It took effect immediately and applies to filings submitted after entry.

Where it stands

The order is in effect. Reporting also describes a separate AI disclosure order issued by the Chief Magistrate of the Cherokee County Magistrate Court; that order was not located for this entry. No reported enforcement of either order was found as of October 8, 2026.

The certification is stricter than most in this record in one respect: it is made under penalty of perjury, and it covers whether each citation supports "the proposition cited," not only whether it exists. The order covers proposed orders, the kind of document at issue in Payne.

How it maps to the Standard

Naming the tool in the filing corresponds to Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure. The certification that each citation exists and supports its proposition is Clause 3, independent authority.

The order does not address experts by name, but an expert's affidavit filed in support of a motion is a written submission, and the lawyer certifying the filing will reasonably ask how the expert checked any authority the affidavit cites. An expert with a contemporaneous record under Clause 7 can answer.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

The order was read from a scanned copy; its text was transcribed by OCR and the signature page checked visually. The Magistrate Court's separate order was not located.

About this entry

This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for Cherokee County Superior Court AI standing order records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked October 8, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the rules and guidance entries. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Top