Loading…
Universal Search
Filter by county, category, case type, and confidence. Every result carries its source citation and last-verified date.
Your first 7 Judge Intelligence Reports are free with a free account — no payment card required.
Create your free account →Need the statute or rule itself? Search the Florida Law Library for “artificial intelligence” →
● marks a launch county — the deepest coverage tier, where judge, division, and rule ingestion land first.
Showing the first 50 of 262 rules for “artificial intelligence”— narrow with the filters to see the rest.
The 394th Judicial District Court's updated standing order on artificial intelligence, applying to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 394th Judicial District Court of Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. It warns that generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, OpenAI, Bing and others) are unreliable, prone to bias, and often fabricate information, and requires every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses AI for legal research or drafting to sign and file the attached certification before using AI-generated information — certifying that all AI-created language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate through traditional non-AI legal sources by a licensed human, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for noncompliance. Signed July 22, 2026, effective immediately.
The 394th Judicial District Court's updated standing order on artificial intelligence, applying to every pending or hereafter filed case in the 394th Judicial District Court of Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties. It warns that generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, OpenAI, Bing and others) are unreliable, prone to bias, and often fabricate information, and requires every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses AI for legal research or drafting to sign and file the attached certification before using AI-generated information — certifying that all AI-created language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate through traditional non-AI legal sources by a licensed human, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for noncompliance. Signed July 22, 2026, effective immediately.
Under rule 2.515(d)(2) as amended effective June 15, 2026, each signer of a Florida court filing represents that the signer has read the document, that there are good grounds to support it, that it is not interposed for delay, and that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited"; the court may impose sanctions after notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court's 2026 commentary describes the amendment as a statewide, uniform replacement for circuit administrative orders that imposed disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence, and AOSC26-12 addresses the circuit- and judge-level requirements.
7 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge John A. Kazen's published procedures (filing).
10 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo's published procedures (filing).
24 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Rolando Olvera's published procedures (discovery & conferral).
54 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Ernest Gonzalez's published procedures (chambers procedures).
3 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Marcia A. Crone's published procedures (filing).
6 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Jane J. Boyle's published procedures (chambers procedures).
9 verbatim chambers requirements from Judge Rolando Olvera's published procedures (case management).
E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-3 — Standards of Practice to be Observed by Attorneys: the court's own rule, verbatim from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LOCAL RULES (as of February 9, 2026), official PDF, sha-custodied. Court-level requirement: applies in every case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alongside the federal rules and any judge-specific procedures.
E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11 — Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Documents: the court's own rule, verbatim from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LOCAL RULES (as of February 9, 2026), official PDF, sha-custodied. Court-level requirement: applies in every case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alongside the federal rules and any judge-specific procedures.
N.D. Tex. LCrR 47.2 — Briefs: the court's own rule, verbatim from LOCAL CRIMINAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Effective September 1, 2026), official PDF, sha-custodied. Court-level requirement: applies in every case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas alongside the federal rules and any judge-specific procedures.
N.D. Tex. LR 7.2 — Briefs: the court's own rule, verbatim from LOCAL CIVIL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Effective September 1, 2026), official PDF, sha-custodied. Court-level requirement: applies in every case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas alongside the federal rules and any judge-specific procedures.
Local administrative rules of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, adopted by the judges effective November 1, 2024: general rules (title, scope and application; the Texas Lawyer's Creed; self-represented litigants; random assignment of cases; virtual hearings; filing papers, with pleadings and motions complying with the courts' standing order on the use of artificial intelligence and carrying its certification; conflicting settings; attorney and judicial vacations; hearings; TRO and other ex parte applications; proposed orders; conflicting engagements; decorum; inclement weather and emergency scheduling); civil cases (trial weeks, expert reports, certificates of conference, uncontested and agreed matters, depositions, dismissal for want of prosecution); family law cases (the standing order in divorce and parent-child suits); and bankruptcy proceedings. The rules' appendices - the AI standing order and certification (published as a separate rule), the Ninth Region's rules and the 2020 family standing order - are described in an editorial note.
Standing order of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, effective immediately for every pending or later-filed case: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission, sign and file the Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Appendix B, printed with the order) that all AI-generated language, quotations, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and possible sanctions; the local rules require every pleading and motion to comply with the order and contain the certification.
Local administrative rules of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, adopted by the judges effective November 1, 2024: general rules (title, scope and application; the Texas Lawyer's Creed; self-represented litigants; random assignment of cases; virtual hearings; filing papers, with pleadings and motions complying with the courts' standing order on the use of artificial intelligence and carrying its certification; conflicting settings; attorney and judicial vacations; hearings; TRO and other ex parte applications; proposed orders; conflicting engagements; decorum; inclement weather and emergency scheduling); civil cases (trial weeks, expert reports, certificates of conference, uncontested and agreed matters, depositions, dismissal for want of prosecution); family law cases (the standing order in divorce and parent-child suits); and bankruptcy proceedings. The rules' appendices - the AI standing order and certification (published as a separate rule), the Ninth Region's rules and the 2020 family standing order - are described in an editorial note.
Standing order of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, effective immediately for every pending or later-filed case: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission, sign and file the Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Appendix B, printed with the order) that all AI-generated language, quotations, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and possible sanctions; the local rules require every pleading and motion to comply with the order and contain the certification.
Local administrative rules of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, adopted by the judges effective November 1, 2024: general rules (title, scope and application; the Texas Lawyer's Creed; self-represented litigants; random assignment of cases; virtual hearings; filing papers, with pleadings and motions complying with the courts' standing order on the use of artificial intelligence and carrying its certification; conflicting settings; attorney and judicial vacations; hearings; TRO and other ex parte applications; proposed orders; conflicting engagements; decorum; inclement weather and emergency scheduling); civil cases (trial weeks, expert reports, certificates of conference, uncontested and agreed matters, depositions, dismissal for want of prosecution); family law cases (the standing order in divorce and parent-child suits); and bankruptcy proceedings. The rules' appendices - the AI standing order and certification (published as a separate rule), the Ninth Region's rules and the 2020 family standing order - are described in an editorial note.
Standing order of the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter and Randall Counties, effective immediately for every pending or later-filed case: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission, sign and file the Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Appendix B, printed with the order) that all AI-generated language, quotations, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and possible sanctions; the local rules require every pleading and motion to comply with the order and contain the certification.
Standing order of the Lubbock County district courts and county courts at law for every divorce suit and suit affecting the parent-child relationship, including modification and enforcement suits, binding on the parties and those acting in concert with them and enforceable by contempt: no disruption of the children; conduct of the parties; preservation of property and use of funds, records, insurance and specific authorizations in divorce cases; ex parte applications; a mandatory exchange of income, insurance and related information before a hearing on child support; section 9, use of artificial intelligence - attorneys and self-represented litigants are responsible for the accuracy of their filings, and reliance on AI-generated information that results in fabricated, misleading or non-existent citations or facts may result in sanctions; and service and application of the order (the petitioner attaches it to the petition).
Standing order of the Gray County Court for every pending or later-filed case in that court: 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 attached certification that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by an attorney licensed in Texas, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced. The certification form is printed with the order.
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.
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.
Williamson County's registered generative-AI rule (Local Rules of Court (2024), Rule I.J and Exhibit A): every attorney and self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must verify the AI-generated information before using it in a submission or proceeding and must sign and attach the Certificate Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence to any filing where AI-generated information is used — certifying compliance with the court's standing order on AI, that all AI-created or AI-contributed content (language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, legal analysis) was verified against traditional non-AI sources, and acknowledging sanctions exposure under the Disciplinary Rules, the Rules of Civil Procedure, CPRC chapter 10, the court's inherent power and contempt. Non-compliance may draw a show-cause order and sanctions. Applies in the District Courts and County Courts at Law of Williamson County.
The current local rules of the District Courts and County Courts at Law of Williamson County (2024 edition, superseding the 2012 rules; registered in TOPICs as docs 1913 and 2928). Title I (general rules) sets courtroom decorum and dress, media access, case designation, the presentation of TROs and extraordinary writs to the assigned judge, settings through the court administrators, in-person appearance with virtual or telephonic hearings by leave, four-week vacation designations filed 90 days ahead, conflict priorities under Third Region Rule 7, mandatory attorney e-filing, orders and settlement papers within 30 days with a 10-day objection notice, a certificate for any AI-assisted filing (Exhibit A), dismissal-docket procedures under TRCP 165a, HIPAA qualified protective orders, judicial-bypass ("Jane Doe") procedures, adoption of the Third Region Rules of Administration and posting duties. Title II (family) divides cases 50/50 between the district courts and county courts at law, requires conferral and attempt-to-confer certificates before settings, restricts § 156.006(b)(1) temporary-orders settings to written court order, routes support through the State Disbursement Unit, and makes these rules a Rule 166 standing pre-trial order — proposed property division, support decision and disposition-of-issues forms exchanged the day before hearing, with waiver and Rule 215 sanctions for non-compliance and court-required ADR. Title III (civil) fixes random case distribution and court assignment for garnishments, bills of review, severances and habeas, conferral certificates, an agreed docket control order within 120 days of the last answer, pre-trial hearings in every jury case, TRCP 10 withdrawal procedure and three-day bankruptcy notice. Titles IV–V (criminal, district and county courts at law) govern case distribution and consolidation, capital-case rotation, appointed-counsel lists and fee schedules, attorney-of-record and withdrawal rules, announcement dockets and settings, discovery checklists, probation intake interviews, and — for misdemeanors — pre-trials at least five days before jury trial with motions filed seven days before the pre-trial.
Cases filed in the 225th stay there through disposition; counsel must confer (at least three legitimate attempts on non-emergency issues) before requesting a hearing; total time announcements; a docket control order within 45 days of the petition with trial within 18/12/6 months (civil jury/nonjury/family), amended agreed DCOs signable without a hearing if within those limits; hearings requested by e-mail to 225settings@bexar.org (under three hours: confirmed once all counsel reply; three hours or more: a brief Zoom or in-person conference, then confirmation the Thursday of the week before or the setting may be dropped); jury and multi-day bench trials set from the court's website with a docket call about three weeks out; motions for summary judgment set for submission 45 days from filing, hearing requests within 10 days; orders by submission with e-filing comments (staff-attorney review for substituted service, defaults and no-record relief); a DWOP docket the fourth Tuesday at 8:30 a.m.; emergency relief presented by calling (210) 335-2233 with notice to the other side; page numbers and complete signature blocks; the artificial-intelligence certification on all pleadings; ADA accommodations through Civil District Court Administration at (210) 335-2300.
Random assignment by the District Clerk with cases staying in the 285th unless officially transferred (by agreed order with the receiving judge's consent, recusal, or consolidation in the court of the first-filed case); all settings coordinated through the court clerk, with a Notice of Setting stating the matter, contact details, date, hour and time announcement; a certificate of conference detailing efforts to resolve the dispute before any contested motion (dispositive motions, motions for new trial and ex parte matters excepted); temporary orders reduced to writing within 10 days and final judgments within 30 days or the case may be set or placed on the dismissal docket; summary judgments considered on submission with a hearing at the court's discretion and proposed granting and denying orders with each motion and response; agreed orders e-filed for staff-attorney review; unopposed orders lacking a signature presented at the morning docket; mediation of all contested issues before any jury trial with parties and settlement-authority agents attending; DWOP procedure; emergency matters through the clerk; the court honors all trials set through Monitoring Court for 2026, requires a docket control order, and passes settings only by announced settlement, agreed dismissal with court approval, or a granted continuance.
All pleadings in the Bexar County civil district courts must include a certificate, on the form approved by the Civil District Court Judges and posted on the Presiding Court website, signed by counsel or the self-represented litigant, attesting (a) that all drafted language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analyses produced by generative A.I. will be verified before submission by counsel licensed in Texas (or admitted to appear) or the self-represented litigant as accurate through traditional, non-A.I. legal sources, and (b) that the signer understands they are responsible for any failure to comply. The 225th District Court's own procedures repeat the requirement for pleadings filed in that court.
The standing order adopting the Local Rules for the District Courts of Hays County (effective August 21, 2024), pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 3a and Rule 10 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, superseding all previously adopted district-court local rules.
The local rules for the County Courts at Law of Hays County (adopted July 29, 2025), governing general provisions, courtroom decorum, attorney vacations, conflicting settings, remote proceedings and testimony by affidavit, interpreters, and the recording, broadcasting or photographing of court proceedings.
The Grayson County Local Rules (effective Feb. 1, 2025), governing all Grayson County courts: the TRJA time standards (civil jury 18 months, nonjury 12; contested family 6 months, uncontested 3), conduct and decorum, continuance and conflict-setting rules, remote-hearing practice, and — as the headline — Rule 1.13 Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, the strongest AJR-1 AI regime: a signed certificate ATTACHED to every AI-generated pleading certifying human verification of all AI-created content against traditional legal sources, with sanctions exposure and an outright ban on AI use and recording/transcription devices in the courtroom and court offices; plus the civil-proceedings rules (uncontested docket, ex parte/TRO practice, pretrial/trial settings, mediation, DWOP, transfer/consolidation), court-appointed-counsel duties, and family-law rules.
The Liberty County district courts’ local rules (current August 2025 edition): application and jurisdiction; assignment of cases (equal rotation by the District Clerk); the local administrative district judge (Gov’t Code § 74.091); and civil, criminal and family case management.
Policies and Procedures of Dallas County Court at Law No. 4, Hon. Dianne K. Jones (the March 4, 2026 edition on the court's page): the hearing-request-form scheduling process (effective 3/1/2025 — hearings no longer set by the Clerk's Office), scheduling-order and mediation regimes, DWOP timing, continuance limits, courtesy-notebook deadlines, submission-docket mechanics, Zoom election, Robinson timing, and the summary-judgment discovery-completion practice; the edition also carries the court's AI standing order, composed as its own rule.
Standing Order governing the use of artificial intelligence tools in matters filed in or presented to County Court at Law No. 4, Hon. Dianne K. Jones (published in the court's Policies & Procedures, 2026-03-04 edition; captured from the court's own page) — the fourth AI regime identified in the First Administrative Judicial Region and Dallas County's first bench AI rule in this corpus: a verification duty grounded in Disciplinary Rule 1.01 and Texas Ethics Opinion No. 705 (2025), a certification imposed by the act of filing, submission standards treating AI output as non-authoritative, and enforcement through striking, sanctions, and disciplinary referral.
The shared local rules for practice in the 22nd, 207th, 274th, 421st, 433rd and 466th District Courts of Texas and the Comal County Courts at Law, serving Caldwell and Comal Counties, governing civil settings, conference requirements, and the conduct of the courts' business.
The shared local rules for practice in the 22nd, 207th, 274th, 421st, 433rd and 466th District Courts of Texas and the Comal County Courts at Law, serving Caldwell and Comal Counties, governing civil settings, conference requirements, and the conduct of the courts’ business.
Rule 5.33 of the Tarrant County Local Rules (Part 5, criminal courts), adopted by majority vote of the criminal judges on March 27, 2026: every motion and brief filed in the county's 21 criminal courts must carry a signed certification stating whether the document was created using artificial intelligence; where A.I. was used the certification must also attest that a human verified every A.I.-generated quotation, source, citation, argument and analysis and that the filer accepts responsibility for the document; the court may demand disclosure of the A.I.-created parts and the tool used; violations and false certifications are sanctionable, including striking the filing or contempt.
Part 5 of the Tarrant County Local Rules governs every case filed in the county's Criminal Courts — County Criminal Courts Nos. 1–10, Criminal District Courts Nos. 1–4, and the 213th, 297th, 371st, 372nd, 396th, 432nd and 485th District Courts (Rule 5.11). It sets courtroom conduct and decorum for counsel and all persons (Rule 5.2), motion practice (presentment within three business days of filing, a proposed order with every motion, "unopposed"/"agreed" in the title with a certificate of conference, 14-day responses), amended-versus-supplemental documents, the Rule 5.33 certification regime for filings created with artificial intelligence, attorney-in-charge and withdrawal rules, indigent-defense appointment and fee disclosure, 30-day vacation/CLE notices with sworn continuance motions within 7 days of a conflicting setting, interpreter requests (28 days before jury selection; 14 days before other settings), docket management and conflicting-setting rules, and the Presiding Criminal Judges Panel that administers the criminal court system. Adopted by majority vote of the criminal judges Mar. 11, 2025; this registration (Aug. 27, 2026) replaces all prior versions of Part 5.
The general local rules of the Orange County courts (128th/163rd/260th District Courts and both County Courts at Law): time standards for the disposition of criminal, civil and family cases; case management; and the courts’ administrative procedures.
The local rules for the District Courts in McLennan County (effective June 1, 2026), governing the filing and random assignment of civil cases, collateral attacks, ancillary proceedings, consolidation, and district-court practice.
The Local Rules of Practice for the District Courts of Collin County (approved by all sixteen district judges May 6, 2026): conduct and decorum with the TRCP 18c recording ban (adoptions excepted), contact-information and vacation-letter duties, the anti-forum-shopping related-filings rule, electronic-filing and TRCP 21c sensitive-data/initials requirements, the district clerk's ministerial limits and the court-registry disbursement-order drafting rules with the 30-day waiver language, the conference requirement for setting hearings (two-attempt), continuances only by consent on a verified motion, ex parte relief mechanics with the 2-hour notice rule and its Title 4 / imminent-harm exceptions, the 20-minute-per-side family-law temporary-orders limit, motion-practice certificate-of-conference in three forms, the non-party government-employee subpoena conference/certificate rule, discovery-motion single-document rule, the form protective order, attorney-withdrawal mechanics, DWOP grounds, the 30-day final-judgment rule, and the §4.8 AI accuracy-verification requirement.
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.
Judge Kristin Bays's adoption of the same generative-AI standing order text for the 284th District Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
The 90th Judicial District Court's standing order on the use of artificial intelligence, applying to every case in the court for Young and Stephens Counties: a signed AI-use certification with human verification of all AI-generated content, and a prohibition on AI use and recording in the courtroom and court offices.
Judge Scharlene W. Valdez's adoption of the same generative-AI standing order text for County Court at Law No. 6: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
Judge Vincenzo J. Santini's standing order governing generative AI use in the 457th District Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
The Chambers County Court at Law media plan governing recording, broadcasting, televising and photographing of courtroom activity, with safeguards to preserve the dignity of proceedings and a fair trial.
The Liberty County media plan governing recording or broadcasting of court proceedings by individuals, with safeguards to preserve the dignity of proceedings and a fair trial.