D. Ariz., Judge Krissa M. Lanham: separate declaration disclosing generative AI use (Preliminary Order)
Fill-in declaration for cases before Judge Krissa M. Lanham (District of Arizona) where her preliminary order applies: discloses generative AI use in connection with a filing, certifies personal review in the filer's independent judgment, and identifies AI parts.
MaintainedWe keep this page up to date.Law stated as at
Kind
Court document A document filed or served in a court or tribunal.
Version
1
Where it applies
United States, United States federal courts, Arizona
AI use
Green The tool writes the first draft inside a template you have already tested. You check it. Without that test, first drafting starts at Yellow.
Source
Written for this library
Status
Maintained. Checked on 8 November 2026 against the 2 authorities it cites, for United States, United States federal courts and Arizona.
When to use it
Use in cases before Judge Lanham in which her preliminary order has been entered, whenever a party used generative AI (large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Google Gemini or Grok) in connection with a filing. Attach the declaration to the filing.
How to use this precedent
Check that it fits the matter: read “When to use it” and the places it applies to.
Log in to read the full text. It is free.
Adapt it to the matter, filling in each placeholder shown in [square brackets].
Use AI only as far as the Green level allows. “How AI may be used” says what AI may and must not do.
Before it goes out, a lawyer checks it against current law and each point under “The lawyer checks”.
How AI may be used
A tool may lay out the statement the rule or order provides and fill in facts the signer gives it. The signer decides what to say about the AI use and makes the checks the statement describes.
AI may
Insert the tool name, version and uses the signer has recorded
Insert only a version of the statement that the rule or order provides and that matches the signer's account of AI use
Check that the statement sits where the rule or order says it must
AI must not
Must not state that citations, quotations or facts were checked; only the signer can say that after doing it
Must not describe the AI use more narrowly than the file record shows
Must not put prompts, privileged material or confidential client information in the statement
The lawyer checks
The current rule or order has been opened on the court's own site and matches the words used
Every citation and quotation was checked by a person against an official or recognised source
The statement is placed and signed as the rule requires, by the person the rule names