A Court’s Standing Order on A.I.

In Lucas v. Scharf, 2026 WL 642917 (W.D. N. Car. Feb. 25, 2026), the court quoted its standing order on artificial intelligence:

The Court’s Standing Order states:

[b]riefs and memoranda prepared using [AI] platforms ( e.g. ChatGPT) have increased the Court’s concern regarding the reliability and accuracy of filings. In particular, the Court is concerned regarding whether factual and legal citations or references in court filings have been properly vetted by counsel or the pro se parties filing the documents. There have been several reports around the country regarding courts receiving briefs containing fictitious case cites and unsupported arguments that have been generated by AI sources. This order is intended to mitigate these concerns with the following requirements.

All attorneys and pro se filers must file a certification with any brief or memorandum submitted to the Court that states the following;

1. No artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of this document, with the exception of such artificial intelligence embedded in the standard on-line legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg;

2. Every statement and every citation to an authority contained in this document has been checked by an attorney in this case and/or a paralegal working at his/her direction (or the party making the filing if acting pro se) as to the accuracy of the proposition for which it is offered, and the citation to authority provided.

The Lucas court wrote: “Here, Plaintiff did not provide the required certification. That makes sense, given that the overwhelming majority of Plaintiff’s case citations are fake and likely AI-generated. Between Plaintiff’s response and her surreply, the Court counts no less than twelve wholly fraudulent case citations.”

Much has been written about hallucinations:

• Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours  (Jan. 17, 2026);
• Failure to Completely Meet & Confer, and Citing a Non-Existent Transcript, Dooms Motion (Dec. 27, 2025);
• “Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back Into the Water,” A.I. Hallucinates Metadata (Nov. 20, 2025);
• Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – Referral to Atty. Grievance Comm’n. (Nov. 2, 2025);
• Hallucinations: “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”  (Jan. 2, 2024).

This blog is not about hallucinations.

Instead, one question is: Should Courts Use Standing Orders or Local Rules to Address A.I.? (Dec. 2, 2023).  One issue is, if a mandate is to be imposed, what is the best vehicle? Id. For example, will individual Standing Orders create a confusing patchwork? EDRM has posted a repository of Judicial Orders – EDRM.

Another question is whether such a mandate should be imposed at all?  What is AI?  ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024), n. 1, states: “There is no single definition of artificial intelligence.”

For example, Is spell check AI? (California Learning Resource Network, Jul. 2, 2025)(“While spell check relies on algorithms and statistical models, its classification as true AI is debatable…. While spell check, in its simplest form, is not strictly AI, modern implementations incorporate AI-derived technologies and techniques, particularly machine learning and natural language processing. These advancements have significantly improved the accuracy and effectiveness of spell check, transforming it from a simple dictionary lookup into a more sophisticated language assistance tool. However, it is crucial to distinguish spell check from the broader and more complex field of AI, which encompasses a much wider range of cognitive abilities and applications.”); Adam Butcher, Is Spell Check AI? – AEANET (not all, but some “modern spell check systems increasingly incorporate sophisticated artificial intelligence techniques, leveraging machine learning to offer more accurate and contextually relevant suggestions, making the answer a nuanced and evolving ‘yes.’… Depends on the software.”).

In her excellent book “AI in Legal Tech” (Wiley 2026), 53, Cat Casey gives examples of “Natural Language Processing,” including predictive typing and autocomplete, as well as grammar checkers, among others. She wrote: “Have you every had your keyboard finish a sentence mid-email?  That’s NLP using probability and context to suggest your next word—sometimes spot-on, sometimes hilariously off.”  She points out that Google and Bing leverage NLP to refine searches.

I suggest that Standing Orders referring to “AI” are clear at their core, but may be fuzzy at their edges.