Loading…
An order issued under the California Rules of Court governing court administration and technology, including rule 10.430, on generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte: it adopts the Judicial Council of California's AI Model Policy; allows court personnel limited administrative and support uses, advisory and non-determinative; prohibits generative AI in judicial decision-making, the input of confidential, sealed or non-public information into a system not approved and secured, and public-facing communications that could be taken for legal advice; delegates oversight to the Court Executive Officer (rules 10.430 and 10.610); requires an affirmative disclosure when generative AI materially assisted in drafting a court document, memorandum, report or proposed order intended for filing, circulation to parties or the court record (not for de minimis or purely mechanical uses, nor for a judicial officer's own drafting tools in chambers); keeps the person signing, issuing or approving a document fully accountable; and, for attorneys and self-represented litigants (Section XI), states that SB 574 will change BP 6068 and other statutes to include requirements of court users and practitioners to report the use of AI and of parties to ensure the accuracy of citations, and that the Court shall require adherence to all mandated reporting requirements per SB574.
California > First Appellate District > Del Norte County > Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE Standing Order 26-002 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel I. AUTHORITY This Order is issued pursuant to California Rules of Court governing court administration and technology, including rule 10.430. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Order is to establish clear parameters for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) within the Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte in order to: 1. Preserve judicial independence and decision-making authority; 2. Protect confidential, sealed, and sensitive court information; 3. Ensure compliance with Judicial Council policies and California law; and 4. Maintain public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, and transparency of the judicial branch. III. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Order, generative artificial intelligence means a computer-based system that uses machine learning or similar techniques to produce new content—such as text, images, audio, video, code, or data visualizations—in response to user inputs. Generative AI systems create content that is not pre-programmed or explicitly retrieved but synthesized based on underlying models trained on large datasets and may include integration with other sources, such as real-time access to proprietary databases. IV. GOVERNING POLICY 1. Judicial Council AI Model Policy as expressed in C.R.C. 10.430 The Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Judicial Council of California’s AI Model Policy as the governing framework for the evaluation, procurement, implementation, and use of generative AI tools and services. 2. Rule of Court Compliance All acquisition, testing, and deployment of generative AI tools shall comply with California Rule of Court 10.430 and all applicable Judicial Council technology, information security, privacy, and procurement policies. V. PERMISSIBLE USES Subject to approval and oversight consistent with Judicial Council policy, generative AI may be used by Court personnel for limited administrative and support functions, including but not limited to: • Drafting non-dispositive internal documents; • Summarizing publicly available information; • Assisting with research or workflow efficiency; and • Other functions expressly authorized by the Court Executive Officer or designee. All such use must remain advisory and non-determinative. VI. PROHIBITED USES 1. Judicial Decision-Making Generative AI shall not be used to make, draft, or determine judicial rulings, findings, orders, judgments, or sentencing decisions, nor to replace the independent legal analysis and judgment of a judicial officer. 2. Confidential and Protected Information No judicial officer or court employee shall input, upload, or disclose: o Confidential or sealed records; o Non-public case information; o Personally identifiable information; or o Any protected data into a generative AI system that is not expressly approved and secured in accordance with Judicial Council policy. 3. Public-Facing Representations Generative AI shall not be used to communicate with court users or the public in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as legal advice, judicial guidance, or official court action, unless expressly authorized. VII. OVERSIGHT AND DELEGATION 1. Court Executive Officer Consistent with California Rules of Court 10.430 and 10.610, oversight authority for generative AI tools is delegated to the Court Executive Officer, or the CEO’s designee, who shall ensure compliance with this Order and applicable Judicial Council policies. 2. Internal Controls The Court Executive Officer may issue supplemental administrative directives governing training, approval, monitoring, auditing, or restriction of generative AI use. VIII. ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS Nothing in this Order alters or diminishes the ethical, professional, or legal obligations of judicial officers or court personnel under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, applicable statutes, or Rules of Court. IX. PRIOR ORDERS Any prior administrative or standing orders inconsistent with this Order are superseded to the extent of the inconsistency. X. AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT 1. Disclosure Obligation When generative artificial intelligence has been used to assist in the drafting of any court document, memorandum, report, or proposed order that is intended for filing, circulation to parties, or inclusion in the court record, the individual responsible for the document shall make an affirmative disclosure of such use. 2. Scope of Disclosure Disclosure is required when generative AI materially assisted in: o Drafting substantive text; o Summarizing legal authority or factual material; o Proposing legal analysis, conclusions, or recommendations; or o Producing language substantially incorporated into the final document. Disclosure is not required for de minimis or purely mechanical uses, such as formatting, spelling correction, or grammar checks, provided no substantive content was generated. 3. Form of Disclosure Disclosure shall be made in a manner appropriate to the document and context, which may include: o A footnote or notation in the document; o A statement in an internal memorandum; or o A separate internal record maintained by the Court Executive Officer or designee. The disclosure shall state that generative AI was used as an assistive tool only and that the final content was reviewed for accuracy. 4. Judicial Officers Nothing in this section requires disclosure of internal drafting tools or methods used exclusively by a judicial officer in chambers for personal research or drafting assistance, provided that: o The judicial officer independently reviews, verifies, and approves the final work product; and o The use of AI does not replace independent judicial judgment. 5. No Delegation of Responsibility Use of generative AI does not diminish or transfer responsibility for the accuracy, legality, or appropriateness of any court document. The individual signing, issuing, or approving the document remains fully accountable for its contents. XI. ATTORNEYS/SELF REPRESENTING LITIGANTS 1. Recent passing of SB 574 will make statutory changes to BP 6068 and other statutes to include requirements of court users and practitioners to report the use of AI and responsibility of parties to ensure the accuracy of citations. The Court shall require adherence to all mandated reporting requirements per SB574. IT IS SO ORDERED. Hon. D. Darren McElfresh, Presiding Judge MAR 04 2026 Date
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF DEL NORTE Standing Order 26-002 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel I. AUTHORITY This Order is issued pursuant to California Rules of Court governing court administration and technology, including rule 10.430. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Order is to establish clear parameters for the use
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-10 (California T4 Del Norte build 2026-10-10) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-del-norte/docs/general/standing-order-26-002_s.pdf (1300382 bytes, sha256 866aee146a1675dba4f759bad9fd4457b0cd9851b67d940a926fd18137700be3; 4 pages; a scan, page images, no text layer): read on the page images rendered at 200 dpi; checked against two machine readings never published (RapidOCR on each page and the file's own text layer, which this scan lacks): every 6-word window of the transcription looked up, and the 16 spans the readings do not hold - the second-level list items, whose open bullets the OCR does not read, its “Al” for AI and two misspellings, a skipped item number and the date stamp - read again on the page images (evidence/vision-check-2026-10-10-resolved.txt). The date stamps and handwritten dates are carried as printed; the signatures and the pleading paper's line numbers are not part of the text; the transcription's closing note, which describes the page, is not published. Review note: Section XI names SB 574 and "BP 6068" as the order prints them; the card carries the order's words, not the statute's. Sections V to X govern court personnel and judicial officers; Section XI addresses attorneys and self-represented litigants.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.