Read your judge's standing order before you use AI at all

1 · Learn the move · Verified-data override

Courts have answered the AI question judge by judge, and the answers differ [S]. Some require a certification in every filing that generative AI was or was not used and that a human checked every citation. Some ban it for certain filings. Some say nothing, which is not permission to skip the check; the signature rule still applies [M]. One circuit considered a court-wide certification rule and declined to adopt it, leaving the individual orders in place [P]. Orders change, and the one you read in the spring may have been amended. So the override rule is: the standing order in force on the date of filing beats anything the model knows about that judge, and anything a colleague remembers. You paste the order; the model reads it and tells you what it requires of this filing, with the retrieval date on the page. If you did not paste it, the model has no order to read and says so. A model that produces the judge's AI policy from memory has produced the likely shape of one, which is the same failure as the invented case, in a different document.

Here is the standing order for the judge in this matter, copied from the court's site today, [date]: [paste]. Here is the filing I am preparing: [describe]. Tell me, quoting the order, what it requires about generative AI for this filing: a certification (what it must say), a disclosure, a ban, or silence. Then the deadline and form it specifies for the certification, quoted. If the order does not address AI, say 'silent' and nothing else; do not infer a policy. Put 'ORDER RETRIEVED [date]' at the top.