United States federal courts: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

There is no nationwide federal court rule on lawyers' use of generative AI. The Judicial Conference's evidence committee has not recommended action on proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 (machine-generated evidence); it has revised the proposal and will study it further with deepfakes.

Disclosure depends on the court. For example, the Northern District of Texas requires a brief prepared using generative AI to say so on its first page, and filing without that disclosure certifies no generative AI was used. Check local rules and the presiding judge's standing orders in every matter.

The Fifth Circuit decided not to adopt a certification rule, reminded counsel of Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(1)(B) and warned that "I used AI" is no excuse, and relies on existing rules and its inherent power; in February 2026 it sanctioned counsel $2,500 for an unverified AI-drafted reply brief and for lack of candour in responding to the show-cause order.

Verify every citation and quotation an AI tool produces before filing.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtVaries by court

  Court disclosure: depends. No general federal rule; some courts require it (for example N.D. Tex. LR 7.2(f)), and the Fifth Circuit and EOIR have none. Before the USPTO there is no general duty to disclose AI use, but disclosure is required where the use is material to patentability (37 CFR 1.56(b)). Client disclosure/consent: no rule found at federal level. EOIR's memo notes that attorneys may need to consult clients about generative AI use, citing ABA Formal Opinion 512.

  Special Order No. 2-98 (2024 Local Rules Amendments)

  Court Action on Proposed AI Rule

  PM 25-40, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings

  Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 89 FR 25609
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.