Loading…
In the Appellate Division, counsel and self-represented parties are responsible for complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history and authorities; generative AI is not prohibited, but its user must personally confirm the accuracy of research done with it and bears responsibility for every statement in a filing; users must comply with protective orders and ethical obligations; failure to verify citations may bring sanctions or State Bar discipline.
California > Fourth Appellate District > Orange County > Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Superior Court of California County of Orange Chambers of 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST KIMBERLY A. KNILL SANTA ANA, CA 92701 APPELLATE DIVISIOIN PRESIDING JUDGE PHONE: (657) 622-5231 APPELLATE DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 26/01 USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that supply natural language answers to user prompts, such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, Claude, Grok, and Google Gemini, are now in wide use. Counsel and self-represented parties are responsible for providing the court with complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel or the self-represented party must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel or the self-represented party alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings. The signature or listing of counsel or a self-represented party on a filing containing AI-generated content, including citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification the signer (and any attorney or other self-represented party listed on the filing) has personally verified the content’s accuracy. The court will impute any errors by such AI tools to the signer and any other attorney or self-represented party listed on the filing. Counsel for a party, or a self-represented party, choosing to use generative AI or other automated tools shall fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations in their use, disclosure to, submission to, or other interaction with any such AI tools. Failure to verify the accuracy of submissions, particularly the accuracy of citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions or disciplinary action before the State Bar. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2026, in Orange County, California. ___________________________ Kimberly A. Knill Appellate Division Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California County of Orange Chambers of 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST KIMBERLY A. KNILL SANTA ANA, CA 92701 APPELLATE DIVISIOIN PRESIDING JUDGE PHONE: (657) 622-5231 APPELLATE DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 26/01 USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that supply natural language answers to user prompts, such as ChatGPT, Harvey, C
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-29 (California T3 Orange build 2026-09-29) from BenchPath custody ca/t3/ca-orange/docs/appellate-division-administrative-order-no-2601-use-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf (155949 bytes, sha256 8839192ebacabe0195b1ee8603a5a6754682a01ecb58b980d648b4d71cf7ffb2; 1 page) with the shared verbatim composer (v2 reflow): page numbers and running headers or footers removed as chrome, lines reflowed into the document's paragraphs; proof 1 (whitespace-only) and proof 2 (same character multiset as the text layer minus chrome) both pass. The letterhead prints “APPELLATE DIVISIOIN”, as printed.
9 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-10.
6 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-13.