IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
STANDING ORDER MC-11
DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF
GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
In this court, and in courts across the United States, the use of generative artificial
intelligence technology (“AI”) in the preparation of filings has grown increasingly frequent.
While the court recognizes that AI can be a beneficial tool in the legal landscape, especially for
pro se litigants who often lack the resources to prosecute and/or defend their interests effectively,
these tools can—and oftentimes do—produce fictitious legal authority that can pose serious risks.
“Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp.
3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). For instance:
The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court’s
time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of
arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the
reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the
bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct.
It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system.
And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously
claiming doubt about its authenticity.
Id. at 448-49.
Given this court’s and other courts’ recent experiences, it is necessary to remind all parties
who appear before the court—represented by counsel or appearing pro se in criminal cases and/or
civil cases—of their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, as well as the Eastern
District of Texas Local Rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b)(2) requires a party
filing any litigation document to certify that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2). Moreover, the Eastern
District of Texas’s Local Rules explicitly caution attorneys and pro se litigants that AI may
produce factual and legal inaccuracies and remind all litigants that they are responsible for
reviewing and verifying the contents of their filings. See Rule CV-11(g); Local Rule AT-3(m);
see also Local Rule AT-3(b) (stating that a lawyer owes a duty to exercise candor, diligence, and
utmost respect to the judiciary).
Pursuant to the court’s inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of parties appearing
before it, and in light of the court’s responsibility to uphold the integrity of the judicial process,
the court may impose sanctions for a party’s filing of documents that violate these principles.
Sanctions may include fines, dismissal of the responsible party’s case, non-monetary directives
such as completing education programs, reporting to the relevant disciplinary boards, and other
appropriate measures. The fact that AI was used to create the offending document will not excuse
or absolve ethical infractions.
In addition, the court imposes the following disclosure and certification requirement on
all parties—represented or appearing pro se in criminal cases and/or civil cases—when they submit
a filing with this court: If a party utilizes AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading, the party
must include with the pleading a “Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage.” The
certificate must disclose the use of AI and certify that the party has independently verified the
accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool. The party must further
certify that the use of AI has not resulted in the disclosure of confidential or privileged information
to an unauthorized party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 20th day of July, 2026.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
