Loading…
A standing order of the District Courts serving Guadalupe County (25th and 2nd 25th Judicial Districts) on the use of generative artificial intelligence, placing the duty of accuracy on the lawyer or litigant, warning of hallucinations, and requiring a bold verification in any pleading prepared with the aid of generative AI.
Applies to any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses generative AI in work filed before the 25th or 2nd 25th Judicial District Court in Guadalupe County. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
STANDING ORDER ON USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE I. The Duty Rests With The Lawyer/Litigant, Not The Computer Every attorney in Texas must swear under oath to "honestly demean myself in the practice of law," accepting a duty to serve their client "to the best of their ability," while "conducting themselves with integrity and civility in … communicating with the Court and all Parties." Attorneys also owe a duty of competence, confidentiality and filing meritorious claims. Generative AI is a computer program that creates new content from a user communicating through prompts. There are numerous Generative AI software, including Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Anthropic (Claude). Self-represented litigants are subject to the same statutory requirements as attorneys when it comes to filing good faith pleadings without misrepresentations to the Court. II. You Are Put On Notice And Cannot Claim Ignorance If an attorney or self-represented litigant chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting of pleadings with the Court, that person is put on notice that Generative AI suffers from Hallucinations. Hallucinations occur when Generative AI provides answers to user prompts that are either wholly or partially inaccurate. If a lawyer or self-represented litigant chooses to use Generative AI in their pleadings and the Court finds those pleadings contain misrepresentations, the filer cannot later claim ignorance to these issues. Further, it is the filer who is subject to a show cause order and potential sanctions. 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 that chooses to use Generative AI in their work product, research, or drafting must include the following verification in bold in their pleadings: "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. 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 that pleading misstates the law, misrepresents case law holdings, or cites 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. It is a violation of this Standing Order if an attorney or self-represented litigant enters sensitive, confidential information of any person involved in the case into any 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. It is a violation of this Standing Order if an attorney or self-represented litigant uses Generative AI in its work product, research, or drafting of pleadings, and that pleading contains sensitive, confidential information from anyone involved in the case. 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. It is a violation of this Standing Order if any attorney or self-represented litigant offers to admit or attach evidence in any contested hearing or trial that has been created, edited, enhanced, or altered by Generative AI. 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. It is a violation of this Standing Order if any attorney or self-represented litigant offers to admit or attach evidence in any contested hearing or trial that used an interpreter that relied upon voice recognition AI to translate a document or piece of live testimony. 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. It is a violation of this Standing Order if any attorney or self-represented litigant offers to admit or attach evidence in any contested hearing or trial that used an expert that relied upon Generative AI in forming their opinions. V. Violations Of This Standing Order. Texas already has Statutes to handle misleading pleadings. In addition to the Court's inherent authority to guard against abuses of the judicial process, Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code (CPRC) and Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TRCP) deal with the effect of signing pleadings, motions and other papers, frivolous pleadings and sanctions. Texas has Statutes to handle attorneys and self-represented litigants that offer fictitious evidence under the Texas Penal Code. This is not to mention the rules for mishandling sensitive information and Texas Disciplinary Rules for Lawyers. 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, including but not limited to death penalty sanctions. The Court may also consider reporting violations of the law and disciplinary rules to the appropriate authorities. VI. Conclusion. Every attorney and self-represented litigant must follow this Standing Order. SO ORDERED: on the 21 [handwritten] day of May [handwritten], 2026. [signature] Judge Heather K. Times, Presiding Judge, 456th District Court [signature] Judge William D. Old, III, Presiding Judge, 25th District Court [signature] Judge Jessica Crawford, Presiding Judge, 2nd 25th District Court
STANDING ORDER ON USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE I. The Duty Rests With The Lawyer/Litigant, Not The Computer Every attorney in Texas must swear under oath to "honestly demean myself in the practice of law," accepting a duty to serve their client "to the best of their ability," while "conducting themselves with integrity and civility in … communicating with the Court and all Parties." A
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-06 from the TOPICs custody scan (image-only PDF read through the vision lane; identical to Colorado doc 2975 and Lavaca doc 2965). Shared 25th/2nd 25th generative-AI standing order; bound to Guadalupe County. Carried on /texas/ai-rules. [TRANSCRIBED BY EYE 2026-09-21 (corpus-0920 P12): every page of the registered file (sha256 d6e239d34374..., 4 page(s), image-only scan; the OCR layer used as a typing base and corrected word by word from the page) read against the rendered file; verbatim, source typos kept, stamps/signatures bracketed; the earlier abstract replaced by the full instrument; confidence high. benchpath-tx-corpus0920-p12-2026-09-21]
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.