By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
No single rule governs. The instruments in this record fall into two families. Some require a filer to disclose that a generative system was used, as the Cherokee County standing order, California SB 574 and the draft Indian regulations do. Others require only that whatever a system produced be verified before filing, as Connecticut's Practice Book Section 4-9 and the Tenth Circuit's proposal do. Of the instruments in force, only the New South Wales practice note reaches expert reports by name.
Fifteen instruments on AI use, side by side
The table sets out fifteen instruments, with status as each entry records it on the date that entry was checked. A certification is a signed statement to the tribunal that a step was taken, such as checking every citation. A disclosure is a statement that a tool was used at all. The two are often confused, and the table keeps them apart.
| Instrument | Issued by and status | Who it covers | What must be disclosed or certified | Consequence named |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cherokee County standing order | Superior Court of Cherokee County, Georgia, all four judges. Signed August 21, 2026; in force. | Attorneys and self-represented litigants. | The tool's name, and certifications under penalty of perjury that the document was independently reviewed and every citation "exists as cited and for the proposition cited." | Striking, sanctions, disciplinary referral or fees. |
| Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9 | Judges of the Connecticut Superior Court. Adopted; in force since June 23, 2026. | "Any person" who uses generative AI on a filed document. | No disclosure of use. Independent verification of all citations, legal authorities or evidence the system produced. | Sanctions up to nonsuit or default judgment. |
| California SB 574 | California Legislature. Adopted by statute September 30, 2026; operative January 1, 2027 as reported. | California attorneys; arbitrators separately. | Disclosure of generative AI use for all documents submitted; no filed citation the attorney has not personally verified. | None stated in the entry. |
| New York Part 161 | Chief Administrative Judge. Adopted; in force since June 1, 2026. | Attorneys and parties; evidence is excluded. | No disclosure. An optional model rule requires review for fabricated material and certification of that review. | None named in the entry. |
| California Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 | Judicial Council of California. Adopted; in force since September 1, 2025. | Court staff and judicial officers only. | Court policies must require verification, and disclosure where a public work is entirely AI output. | None named in the entry. |
| NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 | Supreme Court of New South Wales. In force since February 3, 2025. | Experts, directly. | Prior leave to use generative AI on any part of a report; then disclosure of those parts and an annexed record of use. | None named; without leave, use is barred. |
| Protective orders in Jeffries and Dunn | Magistrate judges, D. Kan. and D. Colo. Orders entered 2026; in force in those cases. | Parties and the discovery material they exchange. | Nothing to the tribunal. Jeffries bars open tools for all discovery material; Dunn identified the tools the parties would use. | None named in the entry. |
| Faiz Enterprise instructions | Gujarat State Tax administration; made binding by the High Court of Gujarat, August 20, 2026. In force. | Tax adjudicators and quasi-judicial officers. | Verification of AI-identified case law from primary official sources; where a tool paraphrases a ratio, the original paragraph reproduced verbatim. | Misconduct; any violation "would amount to contempt of this Court." |
| Judge Starr certificate; Fifth Circuit proposal | Judge Starr (N.D. Tex.): adopted 2023, current status unconfirmed. Fifth Circuit: proposed 2023, declined June 2024. | Attorneys; the circuit proposal added unrepresented parties. | That no part was drafted by generative AI, or that any such language was checked by a human. | The Fifth Circuit warned that "'I used AI' will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense." |
| Tenth Circuit proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) | Tenth Circuit. Proposed September 18, 2026; comments closed October 18, 2026. | Attorneys and unrepresented parties. | No statement of use. Certification that a human verified authorities, quotations, citations and analysis before filing. | Waiver, striking, dismissal or affirmance, money sanctions, discipline, fees. |
| Indian draft regulations, 2026 | Supreme Court of India. Draft; not finalized as of October 8, 2026. | Parties and lawyers, across courts and tribunals. | A declaration of AI assistance at submission; on request, the system, extent and verification steps. | Full responsibility; AI origin is no defense. |
| Civil Justice Council consultation | Civil Justice Council, England and Wales. Proposed; final report pending. | Experts, through the statement of truth. | Identification and explanation of any non-administrative AI use in the report. | None; a proposal. |
| Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 | Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules. Proposed 2025; declined May 2026; revised draft under study. | Parties offering machine output without an expert. | No disclosure as such; the output would have to meet Rule 702. The revised draft adds notice. | Admissibility. |
| ABA Formal Opinion 512 | ABA ethics committee. Guidance, July 29, 2024. | Lawyers, not experts. | Independent verification; informed consent before client information enters a self-learning tool. | None of its own. |
| AI Judicial Guidance, England and Wales | Senior judiciary. Guidance, October 31, 2025. | Judges and their staff. | Nothing from lawyers, parties or experts; responsible use need not be mentioned. | None; not a rule of court. |
What the disclosure and certification instruments share
Almost every instrument places the duty to check on the person who signs or submits the document, not on the tribunal. Connecticut says so in terms: "The court or the clerk of the court is not required to review any filed document for compliance with this rule." The Fifth Circuit declined a special rule but stated that filings must be "carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy." The Faiz Enterprise instructions, the Part 161 model rule and ABA Formal Opinion 512 rest on the same premise.
The instruments also refuse to accept the tool as an excuse. The Cherokee County order states that mistake, lack of technical expertise or time constraints will not be accepted as good faith excuses. The Indian draft provides that a person who submits fabricated material "shall not be entitled to rely upon the character of the AI output as a defence." Several also address confidentiality, meaning what may be entered into a public system: Opinion 512, rule 10.430, SB 574 and the protective orders.
Read against the Standard, the shared core is Clause 3, independent authority: every citation is confirmed against a source that exists independently of the system. The confidentiality provisions correspond to Clause 6, custody and confidentiality.
Where the instruments divide
Disclosure of use versus verification of output
The sharpest division is between instruments that ask whether a tool was used and instruments that ask only whether its output was checked. Cherokee County requires the filer to name the tool. SB 574 requires disclosure for every document submitted. The Indian draft requires a declaration at submission, and New South Wales requires disclosure in the report itself, with an annexed record. Connecticut requires no disclosure, only verification. The Tenth Circuit's proposal departs from the Fifth Circuit's 2023 version on exactly this point. The English guidance goes further: a legal representative using AI responsibly has no reason to refer to its use.
Citations versus evidence
Most certifications concern legal authority. Connecticut extends the verification duty expressly to "evidence," and the federal Reporter observed that this appears to place on counsel a burden of inquiry into the audio, video and documents a client supplies. The Indian draft also reaches evidence. New York's Part 161 does the opposite, excluding anything offered as evidence from its definition of papers. Proposed Rule 707 alone concerns the admissibility of machine output itself rather than a filing.
Who carries the duty
SB 574 and Opinion 512 address attorneys. Cherokee County and the Tenth Circuit add self-represented filers. Connecticut reaches "any person" who files. Rule 10.430, New York's interim policy and the English guidance govern judges and court staff. Consequences differ as much. Connecticut's nonsuit or default and the Tenth Circuit's waiver, dismissal or affirmance fall on the party's case, not only on counsel, and Cherokee County attaches the penalty of perjury.
Whether experts are reached directly
Most instruments reach an expert only through counsel. The Cherokee County entry observes that an expert affidavit filed in support of a motion is a written submission whose authorities the certifying lawyer will ask about; the Tenth Circuit and SB 574 entries make the same point for quoted expert material and filed declarations. New South Wales is the exception in force, regulating the report directly and in advance. Connecticut reaches experts by breadth rather than by name: a sworn affidavit or report filed as an exhibit is a filed document from "any person," and the rule covers evidence. The Civil Justice Council proposal and the Indian draft would reach expert material, but neither is in force. Part 161, by excluding evidence, does not by its terms govern an expert's report.
When the courts in one engagement ask for different things
An expert who works in several courts in a year may meet a tool-naming requirement in one, a certification signed by counsel in another, and nothing in a third. Which instrument governs a given filing is a question for retaining counsel. Nothing here is legal advice.
The Standard's approach is to make the expert's answer the same wherever the work is filed. Under Clause 8, disclosure, the expert states at retention that the use of systems will be disclosed and the record produced on request. The first item on the pre-use checklist is to find out what already governs the matter: a court rule, a standing order, a protective order or the engagement letter.
The record that makes compliance possible is the one kept under Clause 7, contemporaneous record: each system used, the purpose, and what was done to verify its output, entered as the work proceeds. One AI-use log can supply the tool name Cherokee County asks for, the verification steps the Indian draft describes, the annexure New South Wales requires, or the facts counsel needs before certifying a filing. Where an instrument is stricter than the Standard, the instrument comes first; the NSW entry notes that its default is abstention unless leave is given.
Confirming whether an instrument is still current
The rules, orders and guidance topic was last reviewed on October 8, 2026, and each entry states the date its status was checked. Dates to watch:
- The Tenth Circuit stated that final 2027 rules will be posted by November 30, 2026, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2027.
- SB 574 is reported as operative on January 1, 2027.
- The Civil Justice Council's final report had not been published as of September 17, 2026.
- No final text of the Indian regulations was located as of October 8, 2026.
- No vote to publish a revised Rule 707 was reported after the October 15, 2026 meeting.
- Whether Judge Starr's certificate remains in force was unconfirmed.
Read the text on the issuing body's own site before relying on any summary, including these. The Connecticut Law Journal notice, the Tenth Circuit rules memorandum and Practice Note SC Gen 23 are the primary texts for three rows. Then check whether a judge-specific order in the case adds to the general rule.
What the record does not yet show
The record shows instruments, not their application. No enforcement of the Cherokee County order was found as of October 8, 2026, and how Connecticut courts have applied Section 4-9 was not researched. No U.S. state rule located in the sources reviewed requires an expert to disclose AI use in the report itself. Matter of Weber stated that counsel has an affirmative duty to disclose before AI-generated evidence is introduced, but that is one Surrogate's Court decision, not a rule. Ethics guidance such as Opinion 512 may shape what a cross-examiner expects; it does not bind a court.
Matters this guide relies on
- California SB 574 (Statutes of 2026, chapter 858) Primary document read
- Tenth Circuit proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) on generative AI Primary document read
- AI clauses in protective orders (Jeffries; Dunn) Primary document read
- Cherokee County Superior Court AI standing order Primary document read
- Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer Primary document read
- Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9 (Generative AI) Primary document read
- Draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026 Primary document read
- New York courts: interim AI policy and Part 161 Primary document read
- Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 Primary document read
- Civil Justice Council consultation on AI in court documents Primary document read
- AI Judicial Guidance, England and Wales (October 2025) Primary document read
- California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80 Primary document read
- NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 Primary document read
- Matter of Weber Primary document read
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 Primary document read
- Judge Starr's AI certificate and the Fifth Circuit rule Primary document read
Questions
Does any instrument in the record require an expert to disclose AI use in the report itself?
Of the instruments in force, only the New South Wales practice note does so directly. It requires leave before generative AI is used to prepare any part of an expert report and, if leave is granted, disclosure of the parts so prepared with an annexed record of use. The Civil Justice Council proposal and the draft Indian regulations would reach expert material, but neither has been adopted.
What is the difference between disclosing AI use and certifying a filing?
A disclosure tells the tribunal that a tool was used, sometimes naming it. A certification is a signed representation that a step was taken, such as verifying every citation against its source. Cherokee County requires both. Connecticut and the Tenth Circuit proposal require only verification and do not ask whether a tool was used. SB 574 requires disclosure and also bars unverified citations.
Does Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9 apply to expert witnesses?
The rule never mentions experts. It applies to any person who uses generative AI in creating or editing a document filed with the court, and its verification duty extends to evidence as well as citations. The entry on Section 4-9 concludes that a sworn expert affidavit or report filed as an exhibit falls within its terms. How courts have applied it in individual cases was not researched.
Why keep an AI-use log if the court in a matter requires no disclosure?
Because a requirement can arrive later, from another court, a standing order or an opposing party's discovery request, and the record cannot be rebuilt afterward. Clause 7 requires the record to be made as the work proceeds. A log entered at the time can answer a tool-naming order, a verification certification or a practice-note annexure with the same document.
About this guide
This guide is drawn from the entries it links, each of which lists its own sources and says whether its primary document was read. It describes what tribunals did and does not state the law of any jurisdiction. Last checked October 21, 2026. If a matter here has moved, or one is missing, write to [email protected].