UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN RE: )
) STANDING ORDER 26-01
USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) )
IN PREPARING COURT FILINGS )
Courts are seeing an increasing number of filings that include false statements of fact or
law, including citations to fabricated or incorrect legal authority. It is possible that such filings
have been generated by using artificial intelligence (“AI”). Although AI can assist the legal system
in advancing the goal of furthering the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of cases, see
FED. R. CIV. P. 1, AI tools can produce false statements of fact or law, including citations to
fabricated or incorrect legal authority. This can waste judicial and party resources and undermine
the integrity of the proceedings.
The court therefore reminds and cautions all lawyers and parties, including pro se litigants,
that they may not make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to the Court or fail to correct
a false or misleading statement of material fact or law previously made to the Court. Litigants are
responsible for the content of their own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural
rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or portions of court filings.
Litigants are therefore responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed
with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool. This includes citations to legal authority,
quotations, paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, factual and procedural backgrounds, and the
like.
If the court has reason to believe that a litigant has not reviewed and verified the accuracy
of the content in any court filing, the court may impose a range of sanctions. First and foremost,
the court may sua sponte strike any filing that appears to violate the standards mentioned above—
with or without prejudice to refiling. Upon notice, the court may also impose more significant
sanctions depending on the facts and circumstances of particular violations, such as imposing
monetary sanctions, referring counsel to disciplinary authorities, disqualifying counsel, imposing
filing restrictions, or dismissing a party’s case.
The court also has broad discretion to require a party in any case to include a sworn
statement in all filings disclosing the extent to which AI was used to generate the filing, naming
the AI tool used, identifying which portion of the filing includes AI-generated content, and/or
certifying that the filer personally reviewed and verified the accuracy of each legal authority cited
therein.
This order will remain in effect until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2026.
_s/ John W. Broomes_______
John W. Broomes
Chief United States District Judge
