AI Disclosure Requirements for Lawyers: What Courts Require in 2026

Most Federal Courts Now Require AI Disclosure

Attorneys must disclose AI use in court filings across a growing number of jurisdictions. As of early 2026, at least 25 federal district courts have adopted standing orders or local rules requiring attorneys to certify whether AI was used in preparing filings (American Bar Foundation, "AI Regulation in the Courts," 2025). Several state courts have followed. Failure to disclose risks sanctions, fee-shifting, and reputational damage — consequences that far outweigh the minimal effort of compliance.

"The duty of candor has always required lawyers to be transparent with courts about how work product is prepared," wrote Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas in his May 2023 standing order — the first federal AI disclosure requirement. "AI is no exception."

This guide covers what courts require, what the ABA recommends, and how to build disclosure practices that protect your license. For a broader look at AI ethics obligations, see our ABA rules guide.

The Case That Changed Everything: Mata v. Avianca

In June 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York sanctioned attorney Steven Schwartz $5,000 for submitting a brief containing six fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT (Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461, S.D.N.Y. 2023). Schwartz had not verified the citations. When opposing counsel challenged them, he asked ChatGPT to confirm they were real — and it confirmed its own fabrications.

The sanctions order did not punish Schwartz for using AI. It punished him for failing to verify AI output and for misleading the court about the sources of his research. This distinction matters: courts have consistently held that AI use is permissible; careless AI use is not.

Within 12 months of Mata, over 20 federal judges issued standing orders addressing AI-generated filings. By early 2026, that number exceeds 25, with state courts joining at an accelerating pace.

Federal Court Disclosure Requirements

Federal courts have taken three approaches to AI disclosure, ranging from certification requirements to outright standing orders. A 2025 Federal Judicial Center survey found that 62% of federal judges believe AI disclosure rules should be mandatory, not optional (FJC, "Judicial Perspectives on AI in Litigation," 2025).

Standing Orders Requiring Certification

The strictest approach requires attorneys to file an affirmative certification with every brief or motion. Courts using this model include:

• N.D. Texas (Judge Starr): Attorneys must certify that no portion of a filing was drafted by AI, or must identify AI-drafted sections and confirm a human verified them.
• E.D. Pennsylvania: Standing order requires disclosure of AI use in any filing, with a certification that all citations and legal assertions have been independently verified.
• S.D. New York (multiple judges): Following Mata, several judges adopted individual standing orders requiring AI disclosure and human verification certifications.
• N.D. Illinois: Requires attorneys to disclose AI tools used in case preparation and certify that all factual and legal assertions were verified by a licensed attorney.

Local Rules Addressing AI

Some districts have incorporated AI disclosure into their local rules, making the requirement apply to all cases before all judges:

• D. Colorado: Amended local rules to require disclosure when AI "materially contributed" to a filing's legal analysis or factual assertions.
• W.D. Texas: Local rule requires certification that AI-generated content was reviewed for accuracy.
• M.D. Florida: Local rule requires disclosure and certification for any filing in which AI assisted with legal research, drafting, or analysis.

Advisory Guidance Without Mandates

Other courts have issued guidance encouraging — but not mandating — disclosure. These courts treat existing ethical obligations (Rules 3.3 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) as sufficient, while reminding attorneys that AI use does not relax those obligations.

State Court Requirements

State courts are moving faster than many practitioners realize. According to a 2025 National Center for State Courts survey, 18 states have either adopted or proposed rules addressing AI disclosure in court filings (NCSC, "AI in State Courts Annual Report," 2025).

Jurisdiction	Requirement	Scope	Effective
Texas (select courts)	Mandatory certification	All filings	2023
California (proposed)	Proposed rule amendment	All filings	Pending 2026
New York (select courts)	Standing orders	Varies by judge	2023-2024
Florida (select courts)	Local rules	All filings	2024
New Jersey	Court guidance	Advisory	2024
Georgia	Standing orders	Select courts	2024
Illinois (state courts)	Proposed rule	All filings	Pending 2026
Massachusetts	Advisory guidance	Recommended	2024
Pennsylvania	Court orders	Select courts	2024
Colorado	Rule amendment	All filings	2025

This table is not exhaustive. Check your local court's current standing orders before every filing — new requirements appear monthly.

ABA Guidance: Four Rules That Govern AI Disclosure

The ABA has not adopted a standalone AI disclosure rule. Instead, it relies on four existing Model Rules that, together, create a comprehensive disclosure framework. For a deep dive into each rule, see our ethics guide.

Rule 1.1: Competence

Competence now includes understanding how AI tools work, their limitations, and their propensity for hallucination. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) states that attorneys using AI must be competent in the technology or associate with someone who is. Using AI without understanding its limitations violates this rule.

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality

Inputting client data into an AI system constitutes disclosure to a third party. Attorneys must ensure the AI platform's data handling practices protect confidential information. This means using plans with zero data retention — not free tiers that may use your data for training.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

Rule 3.3 prohibits making false statements of fact or law to a court. Submitting unverified AI-generated citations — as in Mata — violates this rule regardless of the attorney's intent. The duty of candor extends to disclosing AI use when a court order requires it.

Rule 5.3: Supervisory Responsibility

The ABA treats AI output like work from a non-lawyer assistant. Attorneys must supervise AI-generated work product with the same rigor they apply to paralegal or junior associate work. This means reviewing, verifying, and taking personal responsibility for every word submitted to a court.

The Heppner Ruling: Work Product and Privilege

In February 2026, Heppner v. Lakeshore Medical Group raised a question that had been lurking since Mata: does AI-generated legal analysis qualify as attorney work product?

The court held that AI-generated drafts prepared under attorney direction and reflecting attorney legal judgment qualify for work product protection — but only if the attorney exercised "substantive intellectual engagement" with the AI output. Merely prompting an AI tool and filing its raw output does not create work product protection.

"The work product doctrine protects the mental processes of the attorney," the court wrote. "When an attorney uses AI as a tool to develop and refine legal analysis — editing, supplementing, and exercising professional judgment over the output — the resulting document reflects the attorney's mental processes. When an attorney copies and pastes AI output without substantive engagement, it does not."

Three practical implications follow:

• Document your interaction with AI. Save your prompts, edits, and revisions. This record shows substantive engagement if work product protection is challenged.
• Edit AI output meaningfully. Cosmetic edits are not enough. Add your own analysis, modify conclusions, and integrate the AI draft with your independent legal judgment.
• Treat AI as a starting point, not an endpoint. The more you shape the final product, the stronger your work product claim.

What to Disclose vs. What You Need Not Disclose

Not every interaction with AI triggers disclosure. Courts distinguish between AI as a drafting tool and AI as a research or analytical tool.

Generally Requires Disclosure

• AI-generated legal research cited in a filing
• AI-drafted sections of briefs or motions
• AI-generated case summaries submitted to a court
• AI analysis presented as the attorney's own legal reasoning

Generally Does Not Require Disclosure

• Using AI for grammar and spell-checking (equivalent to Grammarly)
• Using AI to brainstorm case strategy (internal use, not filed)
• Using AI-powered legal research platforms (Westlaw Edge, Lexis+ AI) — these are treated like traditional research tools
• Using AI to format or organize documents

The line is evolving. When in doubt, disclose. No attorney has been sanctioned for over-disclosing. Several have been sanctioned for under-disclosing.

Sample Disclosure Language

Use or adapt these certifications based on your court's requirements:

For Filings Where AI Assisted with Drafting

Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence

Pursuant to [Court's Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned attorney certifies that artificial intelligence tools were used to assist in drafting portions of this [filing type]. Specifically, [Claude / tool name] was used to [describe use — e.g., generate an initial draft of the argument section, summarize deposition testimony]. All AI-generated content has been reviewed, edited, and verified by the undersigned attorney. All legal citations have been independently verified using [Westlaw/Lexis/other]. The undersigned attorney takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing.

Date: ___________
[Attorney Name], [Bar Number]

For Filings Without AI Assistance

Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence

Pursuant to [Court's Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned attorney certifies that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the research, drafting, or preparation of this [filing type], beyond standard word processing and legal research platforms.

Date: ___________
[Attorney Name], [Bar Number]

For Filings Where AI Assisted with Research Only

Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence

Pursuant to [Court's Standing Order / Local Rule], the undersigned attorney certifies that artificial intelligence tools were used to assist with legal research in connection with this [filing type]. All cases, statutes, and legal authorities cited herein have been independently verified by the undersigned attorney using [Westlaw/Lexis/other]. All legal analysis and argumentation reflects the independent judgment of the undersigned attorney. The undersigned attorney takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing.

Date: ___________
[Attorney Name], [Bar Number]

Best Practices: When to Disclose Even If Not Required

Proactive disclosure protects you even in jurisdictions without formal requirements. Consider disclosing when:

• You practice in multiple jurisdictions. A court you appear in tomorrow may adopt a requirement today. Building disclosure into your workflow ensures compliance everywhere.
• The opposing party may challenge your work product. Voluntary disclosure neutralizes any argument that you concealed AI use.
• Your client agreement addresses AI use. If you promised your client you would disclose AI use, follow through — regardless of court requirements.
• The filing contains complex legal analysis. Disclosing AI assistance and your verification process shows thoroughness, not weakness.

"Disclosure is not an admission of inadequacy," notes the New York City Bar Association's 2024 report on AI in legal practice. "It is a demonstration of competence and candor."

Building Firm-Wide Disclosure Practices

Ad hoc disclosure decisions invite inconsistency and risk. Build a firm-wide protocol:

1. Maintain a court-by-court matrix. Track which courts require disclosure, what form they require, and when the requirement was last updated. Assign one attorney to update it monthly.
2. Create standard certification templates. Use the language above as starting points. Have templates ready so that adding disclosure takes seconds, not minutes.
3. Log AI use per matter. Record when AI was used, which tool, what prompts were given, and what edits were made. This log serves as evidence of substantive engagement under Heppner and supports privilege claims.
4. Train every attorney. Disclosure obligations apply to every attorney who files, not just the ones who use AI directly. A partner who files a brief drafted by an associate using AI must know whether disclosure is required.
5. Review client engagement letters. Update engagement letters to address AI use — whether you will use it, how you will protect confidentiality, and whether you will disclose to courts. Transparency with clients prevents disputes later.