FILED
June 25, 2026
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David Cano
BY: ________________________________
DEL RIO DIVISION DEPUTY
§
§
§
In re: The use of artificial intelligence in §
the preparation of filings in the Court of §
U.S. District Judge Ernest Gonzalez §
§
§
STANDING ORDER CONCERNING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS
BEFORE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ERNEST GONZALEZ
In this Court, and in courts across the United States, the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”)
in the preparation of filings has grown increasingly frequent. A similar trend has arisen in parties
urging unsupported legal contentions, many of which appear to be the result of AI misuse.1 Given
the Court’s and other courts’ recent experiences, it is necessary to remind all parties that appear
before the Court—represented or appearing pro se, in criminal cases and civil cases—of their
obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct. See Western District of Texas Local Rule AT-7.
Rule 11 and the applicable standards of professional conduct require that all legal
contentions in documents filed with a court be warranted by existing law. And while the Court
recognizes that AI can be a beneficial tool, “[t]o ethically use generative AI in the practice of law
. . . a lawyer must ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy.”
Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 235 (5th Cir. 2026).2
1
Damien Charlotin, a French lawyer, maintains a database of AI use in the courts of 31 countries. Damien
Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations. As of this order, he
reports at least 1,148 cases of hallucinations in the United States Courts since June 2023. Id.
2
See also A.B.A STANDING COMM. ON ETHICS & PRO. RESP., FORMAL OPINION 512 (July 29, 2024),
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-
opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf.
1
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, non-monetary directives such as completing education programs,
reporting to disciplinary boards, and other appropriate measures. The fact that AI is used in or
generated the offending document will not excuse or absolve ethical indiscretions.
Parties are further reminded of Section 11(a) of the Court’s Standing Order in Criminal
Cases, which provides:
If counsel utilizes generative artificial intelligence to draft or assist in drafting a
pleading, counsel must include with the pleading a “Certificate of Generative
Artificial Intelligence Usage,” an example of which is appended to this Standing
Order as Appendix C. The certificate must disclose the use of generative artificial
intelligence and certify that counsel has independently verified the accuracy of any
portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool. Counsel must further certify
that the use of generative artificial intelligence has not resulted in the disclosure of
confidential or privileged information to an unauthorized party.
The Court hereby extends the certification requirements of Section 11(a) to parties appearing
before the Court in all cases, including civil cases. An example of such certificate is appended to
this Order as Appendix A.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED, this 25 day of June, 2026.
__________________________________________
ERNEST GONZALEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
APPENDIX A
CERTIFICATE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE
This document was generated with the assistance of [Name of Program], a generative
artificial intelligence tool. I hereby certify that I have independently verified the accuracy of the
legal and factual assertions contained in this document. I further certify that the use of generative
artificial intelligence has not resulted in the disclosure of any confidential or privileged information
to any unauthorized party.
3
