Court AI-Use Disclosure Certification Drafter
Before filing in any court or before any judge whose standing order or local rule requires disclosure or certification of generative AI use in a filing.
A growing number of judges and courts require lawyers to disclose or certify how generative AI was used in a filing. The requirements are not uniform. Some ask whether AI was used at all, some ask which portions it drafted, and many require a statement that a human checked every citation and quotation against the original source. Getting the wording wrong, or certifying a step that did not happen, turns a routine filing into a candor problem.
This prompt starts from the exact text of the order or rule you paste and turns it into a numbered checklist, with each requirement quoted. It compares your description of how AI was used on the filing against each requirement and marks it met, not met or unclear, naming the missing fact. Only then does it draft the certification, in the court's own terms and limited to what your description supports, with placeholders wherever a requirement is not yet satisfied.
Claude does not know which orders apply to your case or whether they have been amended, so finding the current requirement is your job. It also cannot confirm that verification happened; it can only check whether your description says so. A certification is a statement to the court by the signing attorney, who must make sure every statement in it is true and every citation in the filing has been verified. The output is a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
I need to file an AI-use certification or disclosure with a filing in [COURT], case [CAPTION AND NUMBER], before [JUDGE, IF THE ORDER IS JUDGE-SPECIFIC]. I represent [PARTY]. <document name="court_requirement"> [PASTE THE EXACT TEXT OF THE STANDING ORDER, LOCAL RULE OR JUDGE'S PRACTICE STANDARD ON AI USE] </document> <document name="ai_use_description"> [DESCRIBE HOW AI WAS USED ON THIS FILING: WHICH TOOL, FOR WHAT TASKS, WHICH PORTIONS, AND WHAT HUMAN VERIFICATION WAS DONE, BY WHOM, AGAINST WHAT SOURCES] </document> Filing: [NAME OF THE FILING]. Signing attorney: [NAME]. Step 1. List every requirement in the court's text as a numbered checklist, quoting the exact language for each (what must be disclosed, what must be certified, the format, where it goes, who signs). Step 2. For each requirement, state whether my description satisfies it: Met (quote my description), Not met, or Unclear. For anything Not met or Unclear, say exactly what fact is missing, for example that citations were not yet verified against original sources. Step 3. Draft the certification so it satisfies every Met requirement, uses the court's own terms, and is accurate to my description. Do not certify anything my description does not support. Where a requirement is Not met or Unclear, insert [ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM: what is needed] instead of language. Step 4. Note any formatting or placement instruction in the court text (separate document, part of the signature block, attached exhibit). Keep the certification plain and factual. Do not add statements about AI generally. This is a draft for attorney review, and I will verify every citation in the underlying filing before signing.
Example Output
A checklist of every requirement quoted from the court's text with a met, not met or unclear status, followed by a draft certification in the court's own terms with placeholders for anything not yet satisfied.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
AI-USE CERTIFICATION REVIEW (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Case: Calloway Freight Co. v. Westmarch Distributors, [CASE NO.] | Filing: Opposition to Motion to Compel STEP 1: REQUIREMENTS 1. "Any party filing a document prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence shall disclose the tool used." 2. "...identify the portions of the filing so prepared." 3. "...certify that each citation and quotation has been verified by a human being against the original source." 4. "The certification shall be filed as a separate document with the filing." STEP 2: STATUS 1. Met. Description: "Claude used for first draft of the background section." 2. Met. Description: "Background section only; argument written by attorney." 3. Unclear. Description says "associate checked cites" but does not say quotations were checked or that sources were originals. Missing: confirmation that every quotation was compared to the original source. 4. Met as a formatting instruction; see Step 4. STEP 3: DRAFT CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Pursuant to [ORDER OR RULE CITATION], counsel for Defendant Westmarch Distributors certifies as follows: 1. Generative artificial intelligence was used in preparing this filing. The tool used was Claude. 2. The portion of the filing so prepared is the Background section (pages 2-4). The remaining sections were drafted by counsel. 3. [ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM: that each citation and each quotation in the filing has been verified by a human being against the original source. Current description covers citations only.] Dated: [DATE] [SIGNATURE BLOCK: SIGNING ATTORNEY NAME] STEP 4: FORMAT - File as a separate document with the opposition (requirement 4).
Tips
- •Paste the current text of the order from the court's or judge's own page. These orders change, and a certification built on an outdated version can be wrong in ways that matter.
- •Describe the AI use honestly and specifically, including what the tool did not do. A precise description makes the certification easier to write and easier to defend.
- •Finish human verification of every citation before you sign. If Step 2 says verification is not met, the fix is to verify, not to soften the certification language.
- •Check whether the requirement applies to the filing type and to all parties, including pro se litigants and co-counsel. Some orders reach every filing.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review. The signing attorney is responsible for its accuracy.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know whether my court requires an AI certification?
Check the assigned judge's standing orders and individual practices, the court's local rules and any general orders, usually on the court's own website. Requirements vary by court and by judge and change over time, so do not rely on Claude's memory of which courts have them. Paste the current text into the prompt, and recheck it if the case is reassigned.
What if the AI was only used for research or editing, not drafting?
Read the order closely, because some apply to any use of generative AI in preparing a filing while others focus on drafted text. Describe exactly what the tool did and let Step 1 and Step 2 show whether the requirement is triggered. If the order is ambiguous about your use, disclosing conservatively or seeking clarification through whatever channel the court permits is usually safer than guessing.
Can Claude certify that the citations were verified?
No. Only a person can verify citations, and only the signing attorney can certify it. The prompt checks whether your description says verification was done and leaves a placeholder if it does not. Run the citation verification audit prompt to build a checklist, verify each authority in a citator against the original source, and then confirm the certification language yourself.
Should I disclose AI use even when no order requires it?
That is a judgment call that depends on your jurisdiction's ethics guidance, your client's preferences and your firm's policy. Disclosure is not required everywhere, but some lawyers disclose voluntarily. What is always required is that the filing be accurate and every citation real and correctly stated. Your firm's AI use policy should say how to handle this so individual lawyers are not deciding case by case.
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.