Texas Courts AI Filing Rules Tracker

The court-published Denton County Probate Courts — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (SO-2025-00002, December 12, 2025), quoted whole from the document as posted (3 page(s)).

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Denton County · Judge Christopher J. Everett · verified September 14, 2026

The court-published Denton County Probate Courts — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (SO-2025-00002, December 12, 2025), quoted whole from the document as posted (3 page(s)).

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Denton County · Judge David (Dave) Jahn · verified September 14, 2026

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.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Angelina County · verified September 22, 2026

An administrative order of the Hays County Courts at Law (probate and guardianship) requiring a prominent AI Disclosure Statement in any filing drafted with the aid of generative artificial intelligence and imposing a non-delegable duty of human verification.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Hays County · verified September 21, 2026

Panola County's 2026 standing order on artificial intelligence for the County Court at Law and County Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants may not rely on AI-generated legal research that a human has not reviewed and confirmed; the order prohibits filing pleadings that misstate the law, misrepresent holdings or cite non-existent authority, entering sensitive or confidential case information into an AI program, filing pleadings that contain such information, using AI to create, edit, enhance or alter evidence for any contested hearing or trial, and using experts who relied on AI in forming their opinions; violations draw sanctions after a show-cause hearing (fines, struck pleadings, referral to law enforcement or the State Bar); and every attorney or self-represented litigant must read the order and file the sworn verification with their initial pleading or appearance.

Tenth Administrative Judicial Region · Panola County · verified September 19, 2026

The 266th District Court's artificial-intelligence standing order: a self-represented litigant or attorney who uses AI must sign and submit the attached certification before using any AI-generated information in a submission.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Erath County · Judge Jason Cameron Cashon · verified September 21, 2026

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.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Culberson County · verified October 3, 2026

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.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Presidio County · verified October 3, 2026

The Cooke County Court at Law's artificial-intelligence standing order: a self-represented litigant or attorney who uses AI must incorporate and certify a certificate within each AI-generated pleading, and recording and AI use are banned in and near the courtroom and court offices.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Cooke County · Judge Andrea Townsend · verified September 21, 2026

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.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Jeff Davis County · verified September 12, 2026

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.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Brewster County · verified September 12, 2026

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.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Hudspeth County · verified September 12, 2026

The current Wichita County district-courts artificial-intelligence standing order, applied to the 89th District Court: a joint order of the 30th, 78th and 89th District Courts requiring a signed certification before any AI-generated information is used in a submission, and banning recording and AI use in the courtroom and court offices.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Wichita County · Judge Frank Dobie Kosub · verified September 6, 2026

The current Wichita County district-courts artificial-intelligence standing order, applied to the 78th District Court: a joint order of the 30th, 78th and 89th District Courts requiring a signed certification before any AI-generated information is used in a submission, and banning recording and AI use in the courtroom and court offices.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Wichita County · Judge Meredith Kennedy · verified September 6, 2026

The current Wichita County district-courts artificial-intelligence standing order, applied to the 30th District Court: a joint order of the 30th, 78th and 89th District Courts requiring a signed certification before any AI-generated information is used in a submission, and banning recording and AI use in the courtroom and court offices.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Wichita County · Judge Jeff E. McKnight · verified September 6, 2026

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.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Guadalupe County · verified September 22, 2026

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.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Bexar County · verified September 23, 2026

The one-paragraph certificate that Local Rule 4.O.1 requires on every pleading in the civil district courts: the signer certifies that all drafted language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analyses produced by generative A.I. in the filing have been verified as accurate through traditional, non-A.I. legal sources, and that all attorneys of record or self-represented litigants submitting the filing understand and acknowledge that they are responsible for their failure to comply with the order; signed by the attorney or pro se litigant.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Bexar County · verified September 8, 2026

The Rockwall County District Courts and statutory County Courts at Law's general standing order on AI (signed and entered June 22, 2026 by all district and CCL judges): any attorney or self-represented party who used AI in any way to prepare a filed document SHALL disclose that use in a clear, concise sworn factual statement AND certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified and is accurate, on penalty of the court's discretion (including striking the non-compliant filing); the order supplies a sample penalty-of-perjury certification.

First Administrative Judicial Region · Rockwall County · verified August 28, 2026

A standing order of the District Courts serving Lavaca 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.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Lavaca County · verified September 22, 2026

A standing order of the District Courts serving Colorado 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.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Colorado County · verified September 22, 2026

The Denton County District Courts' re-issued standing order on generative artificial intelligence (signed May 8, 2026 by the presiding judge and all twelve district judges — Shipman, Burgess, Shanklin, McFarling, Hill, Alexander, Johnson, Haertling, Breading, Jones, Dickens, Levonius — and filed with the District Clerk May 11, 2026; it replaces the October 2025 edition, which required a certification only from those who used AI): every attorney and self-represented litigant who files pleadings or documents or otherwise appears in a district court case shall sign and submit the appropriate attached certification, attesting that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources before submission, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their own, their staff's or co-counsel's non-compliance; the per-case Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence is attached, and a Uniform Attorney Certification lets an attorney certify once for all pending and future cases in any Denton district court and undertake to comply with future versions without further notice (deliverable to the District Clerk by e-mail, fax, mail or hand delivery); the order is effective immediately for all pending and later-filed cases, remains until rescinded or replaced, and the District Clerk files it with the Office of Court Administration and posts it at the courthouse and on the district courts' website.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Denton County · verified September 6, 2026

The Wise County artificial-intelligence regime, adopted by the 271st District Court and County Courts at Law Nos. 1 and 2: any self-represented litigant or attorney who uses AI must sign and submit a certification before using AI-generated information in a court submission.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Wise County · verified September 22, 2026

The certification that the six-county Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence requires every attorney or self-represented litigant to sign and submit before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding: that the signer has reviewed and will comply with the order, that all AI-created or AI-contributed content was independently verified through traditional non-AI legal sources by a human being, and that the signer remains personally responsible and subject to sanctions or contempt for non-compliance.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · DeWitt County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · DeWitt County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Goliad County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification (Exhibit A) that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Refugio County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification (Exhibit A) that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Jackson County · verified September 7, 2026

The certification that the six-county Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence requires every attorney or self-represented litigant to sign and submit before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding: that the signer has reviewed and will comply with the order, that all AI-created or AI-contributed content was independently verified through traditional non-AI legal sources by a human being, and that the signer remains personally responsible and subject to sanctions or contempt for non-compliance.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Victoria County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification (Exhibit A) that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Victoria County · verified September 7, 2026

Every self-represented litigant and attorney who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the district courts of the six counties must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and file the attached certification (Exhibit A) that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified as accurate by a human being through traditional non-AI legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for any failure to comply.

Fourth Administrative Judicial Region · Calhoun County · verified September 7, 2026

Standing order of the 402nd District Court on generative artificial intelligence: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of AI for legal research, drafting or analysis in a case before the court must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a human being, and that the filer understands they will be held responsible, and potentially sanctioned, for their own, their staff's or their co-counsel's failure to comply. The order relieves no one of existing legal or ethical obligations. The certification form (Exhibit A) is reproduced after the order.

Tenth Administrative Judicial Region · Wood County · Judge J. Brad McCampbell · verified September 20, 2026

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.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Montgomery County · Judge Kristin L. Bays · verified September 22, 2026

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.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Montgomery County · Judge Scharlene W. Valdez · verified September 22, 2026

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.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Montgomery County · Judge Vince Santini · verified September 22, 2026

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.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Tarrant County · verified September 23, 2026

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.

First Administrative Judicial Region · Dallas County · Judge Dianne Kathryn Jones · verified September 23, 2026

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.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Stephens County · verified September 22, 2026

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).

Ninth Administrative Judicial Region · Lubbock County · verified September 25, 2026

The Probate Courts of Denton County's standing order SO-2025-00002 (signed late 2025, file-marked with the County Clerk Dec. 12, 2025; registered twice, Dec. 15 and Dec. 16, 2025, as identical prints): every self-represented litigant and attorney in every pending or later-filed probate case — whether or not they say they use any form of artificial intelligence — must sign and submit the attached Certification Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, attesting that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis were verified by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources before submission, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their own, their staff's or co-counsel's non-compliance. Effective immediately; the County Clerk files it with OCA and posts it at the courthouse and on the probate courts' website.

Eighth Administrative Judicial Region · Denton County · verified September 6, 2026

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.

First Administrative Judicial Region · Grayson County · verified September 23, 2026

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.

Seventh Administrative Judicial Region · Andrews County · Judge John L. Pool · verified September 24, 2026

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.

Seventh Administrative Judicial Region · Crane County · verified September 24, 2026

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.

Seventh Administrative Judicial Region · Winkler County · verified September 24, 2026

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.

Ninth Administrative Judicial Region · Randall County · verified September 25, 2026

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.

Ninth Administrative Judicial Region · Armstrong County · verified September 25, 2026

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.

Ninth Administrative Judicial Region · Potter County · verified September 25, 2026

An amendment to the 82nd Judicial District Court's local rules (Falls and Robertson Counties) adding Section VII prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence without prior court order, Section VIII limiting the use of Zoom (no trial by Zoom; witnesses at motion hearings only with approval), and Section IX permitting phone appearances in DFPS cases as an exception.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Falls County · verified September 22, 2026

An amendment to the 82nd Judicial District Court's local rules (Falls and Robertson Counties) adding Section VII prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence without prior court order, Section VIII limiting the use of Zoom (no trial by Zoom; witnesses at motion hearings only with approval), and Section IX permitting phone appearances in DFPS cases as an exception.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Robertson County · verified September 21, 2026

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.

Ninth Administrative Judicial Region · Gray County · Judge Chris Porter · verified September 25, 2026

The Hudspeth County Court's standing order on artificial intelligence, applying to every pending or hereafter filed case in Hudspeth County. It warns that generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, TensorFlow, 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 attorney, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for noncompliance. Signed by County Judge Joanna E. MacKenzie, effective July 12, 2024.

Sixth Administrative Judicial Region · Hudspeth County · verified September 12, 2026

The four standing orders adopted July 3, 2024 by all seven statutory County Court at Law judges of Collin County: No. 1 (video-redaction notice within 10 days of the trial-setting notice, deemed ORDERED absent specific State objection, waiver for untimely requests), No. 2 (court-appointed special commissioners in condemnation suits paid $250/hour with a 2-hour minimum), No. 3 (Use of Artificial Intelligence — mandatory disclosure and citation certification for any AI-assisted filing, with striking for non-compliance and a sample perjury-penalty certification), and No. 4 (a $60/month CSCD administrative fee under Gov't Code §76.015 to monitor ODL alcohol-detection devices, ODL revoked for non-payment).

First Administrative Judicial Region · Collin County · verified August 28, 2026

The shared district AI standing order for the 21st and 335th District Courts as registered for Burleson County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Burleson County · verified September 22, 2026

The shared district AI standing order for the 21st and 335th District Courts as registered for Lee County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Lee County · verified September 21, 2026

The shared district AI standing order for the 21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts as registered for Bastrop County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.

Second Administrative Judicial Region · Bastrop County · verified September 21, 2026

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.

Third Administrative Judicial Region · Williamson County · verified September 23, 2026