Loading…
Joint standing order of the 159th and 217th District Courts of Angelina County (Presiding Judges Todd L. Kassaw and Kristi C. Skillern, signed Sept. 3, 2026, filed Sept. 4, 2026): any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses Generative AI in work product, research, or drafting must include a prescribed sworn verification, in bold, in the pleading; a pleading that lacks it "will not be considered by the Court." The order prohibits AI-fabricated or misstated authority, entering sensitive confidential information into Generative AI, AI-created or AI-altered evidence, AI voice-recognition interpreters, experts relying on generative AI, and recording proceedings for AI analysis; violations are sanctionable after a show-cause hearing.
Applies in the 159th and 217th District Courts of Angelina County to every attorney and self-represented litigant who uses Generative AI in work product, research, or drafting; the order defines Generative AI by example (Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI features of LexisNexis+ and Westlaw Precision).
Verbatim from the operative sections (III–VI) of the order, read from the rendered pages of TOPICs doc 3119 (a scan with no text layer) on 2026-09-05. • III. AI Users Must Verify Their Pleadings. "As a result of Generative AI's tendency to fabricate and malfunction, the Court hereby ORDERS any attorney or self-represented litigant who chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings:" • The prescribed verification: "Verification Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence — My name is ________, my address is ________, I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of making this verification. I swear under penalties of perjury that the statements contained in this verification are true and correct and based on my personal knowledge. I have used ________ (list Generative AI programs used) in either my work product, research, and/or drafting of this pleading before the Court. I have reviewed the entire pleading and represent to the Court and opposing side that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresentations of legal holdings, nor improper citations. I further verify that this pleading contains no sensitive, confidential information from any person involved, nor have I attached evidence that was created, edited, enhanced, or altered using Generative AI. So Sworn on ________ (date). (Signature of Affiant/Filer) (Printed Name of Affiant/Filer)" • "If an attorney or self-represented litigant uses Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting of a pleading and that pleading fails to contain the above verbatim verification in bold, it will not be considered by the Court." • IV. Court-Ordered Prohibitions Using Generative AI. "The Court hereby ORDERS it is a violation of this Standing Order if an attorney or self-represented litigant uses Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting of a pleading and fails to include the above verbatim verification in bold in paragraph III." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from filing pleadings that contain misstatements of law, misrepresentations of case law holdings, and cites to non-existent case law." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from entering any sensitive, confidential information of any person involved in the case into a Generative AI program." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from filing pleadings that contain a person's sensitive, confidential information." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from using Generative AI to create or edit/enhance/alter evidence to be admitted in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from using an interpreter that relies on voice-recognition AI programs to translate documents to be admitted as evidence or during live interpretation in hearings or trial." • "The Court further ORDERS attorneys and self-represented litigants are prohibited from using an expert that relies on generative AI programs in their methodology and work product in forming opinions to be admitted as evidence during hearings or trial." • "The Court further ORDERS that no audio or video recordings of court proceedings are allowed (unless specifically granted by the Judge) for AI analysis or any other purpose." • V. Violations. "If an attorney or self-represented litigant is found to have violated any portion of this Standing Order, the Court will consider all possible sanctions available under the law after a duly noticed show cause hearing. This includes death penalty sanctions." The order cites Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Texas Penal Code §§ 37.02 and 37.09; the Court "may Order attorneys to produce to the Court all invoices and time logs pertaining to the pleading in question," "may also consider requiring the at-fault attorney or self-represented litigant to attach copies of all case law cited with highlighted portions referenced in all future pleadings with the Court," and "may also consider reporting violations of the law and disciplinary rules to the appropriate authorities." • VI. Conclusion. "The Court is not permitted to use Generative AI in its drafting of Orders or while using County equipment." "Every attorney and self-represented litigant must follow this Standing Order …"
If an attorney or self-represented litigant uses Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting of a pleading and that pleading fails to contain the above verbatim verification in bold, it will not be considered by the Court.
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-05 from TOPICs reg. doc 3119 (registered 09/04/2026), found by the dated AI-regime re-sweep of the TOPICs feed (audit 2026-09-04 L20). Scanned PDF (sha256 1890344d…, 5 pages, no text layer) read in full from rendered pages; every quotation verbatim. One instrument covers both district courts (Kassaw, 159th; Skillern, 217th), so one county-scoped rule under the Collin standing-orders pattern.
Dallas County Standing Order Regarding Children, Pets, Property and Conduct of the Parties (Family District Courts General Orders, current edition F2026/05, revised Jan. 31, 2026 — a re-adoption of the same operative text by the current bench: Hon. Kim Brown (254th), Vonda Bailey (255th), Sandre Streete (256th), Ashley Wysocki (301st), Sandra Jackson (302nd), LaDeitra Adkins (303rd), and Andrea D. Plumlee (330th)), as registered in the statewide TOPICs local-rules registry (posted 01/11/2023). The order "applies in every divorce suit and every suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed in Dallas County" automatically, without request: child-disruption prohibitions, pet protection, party-conduct restraints, divorce-case property/records/insurance freezes with specific authorizations, mandatory petition attachment, and its TRO-to-temporary-injunction lifecycle.
General Order of the Civil District Courts sitting in Dallas County (signed April 6, 2020 by the thirteen civil presiding judges), as registered in the statewide TOPICs local-rules registry (posted 10/07/2023): the 25-page limit on motions and briefs with formatting floors — the instrument the individual courts' policies cite as the amended page-limit rule.