Court AI Rules by State: Filings, Judges, Bar Ethics (2027)

As of November 6, 2026, we found no statewide court rule that specifically governs AI in court filings in most states. Among the states we checked, Florida, Connecticut and Indiana have adopted statewide rules: Florida's makes every signer certify that the cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited, Connecticut's requires anyone who uses generative AI on a filing to independently verify the citations, authorities and evidence it produced, and Indiana's makes a signature certify that any cited legal authority is authentic.

Maryland and Texas have citation-verification proposals pending, Illinois and New York say lawyers and parties should not be required to disclose AI use, and many state judiciaries have adopted policies for their own judges and staff. Under the general signature and sanctions rules courts already apply, whoever signs a filing is responsible for its accuracy, whether or not AI helped write it.

Status as of November 6, 2026: Maryland's proposed Rule 1-311 amendment is open for comment until November 19, 2026. Texas's proposed changes to Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Appellate Rules 9 and 52 have preliminary approval only; no final order appears on the Supreme Court of Texas's 2026 orders list. Iowa's new court rules on judges' AI use take effect January 1, 2027.

The table below has one row for each state and the District of Columbia. Each row separates three different kinds of document: a court rule that binds people who file papers, a court system's policy for its own judges and staff, and ethics guidance for lawyers from a bar or its regulator. "Not confirmed" means the answer was not confirmed from an official source as of November 6, 2026; it does not mean nothing exists.

This page covers state courts, with a short section on federal courts. For the wider picture of AI in US courtrooms, see our AI in court hub, and for what happens to people who file fake citations, see AI fake citation sanctions.

Court AI rules by state: the table (as of November 6, 2026)

Every row is as of November 6, 2026. The first column is about statewide rules for people who file papers; local court rules and one judge's orders are in the state notes below, not in the table.

What the table adds up to

Of the 51 jurisdictions in this table, as of November 6, 2026:

• Statewide court rule on AI in filings: 3 adopted rules that put a verification duty on filers (Connecticut, Florida, Indiana); 1 adopted rule that sets a no-disclosure policy without a filer duty (New York); 2 proposed (Maryland and Texas); 1 rule for a single statewide court (Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals); 4 policies or guidance documents instead of a rule (Illinois, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont); 26 none found; 14 not confirmed, including Hawaii, where a December 2025 committee report described a draft declaration order under the Supreme Court's consideration.
• Courts' own AI policy for judges and staff: 22 have a document (13 adopted, including Iowa's rules that take effect January 1, 2027; 7 interim; 2 guidance-level statements); 5 none found; 24 not confirmed.
• Bar ethics guidance on AI: 13 have an ethics opinion from the state bar or its regulator (including Missouri's informal opinion and Virginia's fees-only opinion); 1 has court-adopted AI comments to the conduct rules instead of an opinion (Colorado); 10 have practice guidance that is not an opinion; 2 have opinions only from voluntary bar associations (New York and Pennsylvania); 9 none found; 16 not confirmed.

How to read the table: rules, proposals, policies and guidance

The documents in the table carry very different weight, and mixing them up is a common mistake in AI-in-court trackers.

• Adopted court rule. A rule of court binds everyone it covers, and a court can sanction a violation. Florida's Rule 2.515(d)(2), Connecticut's Practice Book Section 4-9 and Indiana's Trial Rules 11 and 11.1 are examples.
• Proposed rule. A draft published for comment or given preliminary approval. It binds no one until the court issues a final order. Maryland's and Texas's proposals are in this group. A committee draft that has not reached that stage, such as Hawaii's, is not counted as a proposal.
• Policy or guidance for filers. A court can state its position without creating a new duty. Illinois's policy, North Dakota's public notice and Vermont's Administrative Directive 38 tell filers how the court views AI, while the existing signature and sanctions rules do the enforcing. New York's Part 161 is a court rule, but what it states is a policy (disclosure should not be required) and an optional model rule, so it creates no new statewide filer duty.
• Judicial AI policy. Rules a court system sets for its own judges, clerks and staff, such as which AI tools they may use. These do not govern what lawyers or litigants file.
• Court-adopted comments to the conduct rules. Commentary a state supreme court adds to its rules of professional conduct, such as Colorado's January 2026 AI comments. It explains how the binding rules apply rather than creating a new filing duty.
• Ethics opinion. An advisory interpretation of the lawyer conduct rules by a state bar committee or the court's regulator. It is not itself a rule, but discipline authorities apply the underlying rules it interprets.
• Guidance and voluntary bar opinions. Practice guides, letters and articles, and opinions from voluntary bar associations (such as the New York City Bar or the Pennsylvania Bar Association), which bind no one.

Local rules and judges' standing orders sit on top

A state with no statewide rule can still have AI rules in particular courts, and those bind only that court. Some examples, each labeled local:

• Montana Fourth Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties): Rule 3(G) of its Rules of Practice (revised October 31, 2025) requires any party, represented or not, who uses generative AI in a filing to disclose the tool and how it was used and to certify that they checked its accuracy.
• Jackson County, Missouri, Division 25: a standing order updated September 1, 2026 says self-represented parties and attorneys are responsible for the contents of their filings, including any part generated with AI, and warns that noncompliant pleadings will be stricken.
• A federal example: a District of New Mexico judge's standing order requires any party in that judge's cases who uses a generative AI tool in a filing to disclose that AI was used and which tool.

Florida runs the other way: its Supreme Court's Administrative Order AOSC26-12 (May 28, 2026) bars Florida's local courts from imposing their own AI disclosure or certification requirements. Elsewhere, check the local rules of your court and the assigned judge's standing orders before you file.

State notes

These notes give the detail behind each row, with links to the official documents. Tennessee, which is "Not confirmed" in every column, is not repeated here.

Alabama. The Alabama State Bar's formal opinions index lists Formal Opinion 2026-01, "Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules." It says AI "does not create new ethical duties for lawyers" and that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-assisted filings even where disclosure is not mandated. The document itself is styled as best-practices guidance, but the bar files it as a formal opinion.

Alaska. The Alaska Bar Association's Ethics Opinion 2025-1, adopted April 23, 2025, says lawyers may use generative AI, should understand to a reasonable degree how it works, and must review its output. We found no AI order in the Alaska Supreme Court's orders library or court rules index.

Arizona. Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Section 1-509, adopted by Administrative Order 2024-207 (October 30, 2024), governs court personnel's use of approved generative AI tools. On August 27, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition to adopt a new Rule 135, stating that "no tool -- artificial intelligence or otherwise -- can substitute for human decision-making," and directed its AI Steering Committee to report by March 1, 2027. The committee's best practices for lawyers and judges (November 14, 2024) are guidance, not a rule.

Arkansas. Copies of three Arkansas Supreme Court per curiam orders dated December 11, 2025, which we have not yet confirmed on the court's own site, describe an Administrative Order No. 25 on court personnel's use of generative AI with court data and an amendment to the preamble of the Rules of Professional Conduct saying the rules do not prohibit AI but that its use does not excuse a violation. The table leaves Arkansas as "Not confirmed" until the official text is read.

California. Rule of Court 10.430 required courts that do not prohibit generative AI to adopt use policies by December 15, 2025, and Standard 10.80 covers judicial officers. The State Bar's 2026 Practical Guidance, approved May 14, 2026, is guidance, not a rule. The State Bar has also published proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct on AI, including a comment on verifying cited authorities; those are proposals.

News coverage reposted on the California courts' NewsLink (October 1, 2026) reports that the Governor signed SB 574, a bill on lawyers' use of generative AI in court documents; it is a statute, not a court rule. We have not read its text, so we do not state what it requires or when it takes effect. The court rules list shows no Rule of Court on filers' AI use. The duty to verify citations in filings is also stated in case law: in Noland v. Land of the Free (September 12, 2025), the Court of Appeal said no filing should contain a citation the responsible attorney "has not personally read and verified."

Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court amended the Scope section and the comments to Rule 1.1 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct on January 8, 2026 (Rule Change 2026(02)) to say technology, "including artificial intelligence," does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities and that AI use can implicate other rules, among them candor toward the tribunal. That is commentary to the lawyer conduct rules, not an ethics opinion or a filing rule. A Legal Technology Advisory Committee is charged with drafting AI guidance, and the Colorado Bar Association's opinions index through Opinion 151 includes no AI opinion.

Connecticut. New Practice Book Section 4-9, in force since June 23, 2026, says anyone "who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI," and failure may bring sanctions "including, without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment." Signing a filing now certifies compliance (Section 4-2(b)). Matching appellate rules (Sections 60-4, 62-6 and 85-2) took effect July 14, 2026 and reach both counsel and self-represented parties. The rule requires verification, not disclosure of AI use. The Judicial Branch's Policy 1013 (February 1, 2024) governs its employees.

Delaware. A Delaware Supreme Court order put an interim generative AI policy for judicial officers and court personnel into effect on October 21, 2024; it does not bind lawyers. The Delaware State Bar Association's ethics opinions index lists no AI opinion.

District of Columbia. The DC Courts AI Internal Use Policy governs AI use by judicial officers, employees, contractors and volunteers; the document is dated May 16, 2025, and the courts' AI page says it was shared with staff in July 2025. That page lists no filing rule. The D.C. Bar's Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (April 2024) says lawyers must understand enough about how generative AI works and should have a reasonable basis for trusting its output or must review and validate it.

Florida. Rule 2.515(d)(2), as amended May 28, 2026 and in force since June 15, 2026, makes every signer represent that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited," and applies to filings prepared by attorneys and by unrepresented parties. The court said it adopted the change principally to replace varied circuit court AI disclosure and certification orders with one statewide rule, and AOSC26-12 bars local courts from imposing such requirements. The Florida Bar's Ethics Opinion 24-1 was approved by its Board of Governors on January 19, 2024.

Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia's rules, in their July 2, 2026 version, allow penalties for filings with "citations to authority that are false or unsupported," but they do not mention AI and apply only to filings in that court. In a May 2026 discipline opinion (No. S26A0459), the Supreme Court of Georgia said it has "no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys" but that citing nonexistent cases violates its rules. The State Bar of Georgia's AI resources page lists no Georgia-specific AI ethics opinion.

Hawaii. The Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts' final report (December 15, 2025) proposed no changes to the ethics rules but described a draft order that "would require any attorney or self-represented party filing a document to include a declaration that AI was used" and that the cited authorities were verified, which it said was "under consideration by the Hawaii Supreme Court." We found no published version of the draft or order acting on it, and its status is not confirmed as of November 6, 2026, so the table lists Hawaii's filing rule as not confirmed. The Judiciary's AI Guardrails (last updated September 16, 2025) bind its employees, contractors and vendors, and a January 21, 2025 letter from the Chief Justice to the Hawaii State Bar Association says lawyers' existing obligations are broad enough to govern AI.

Idaho. The Idaho Supreme Court formally adopted AI guiding principles in 2026; the principles say AI "must never replace judicial judgment or decision-making," and decisions on an operational policy remain with the court. The Idaho State Bar's formal opinions page shows no formal ethics opinion since 1999.

Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025, says AI use by litigants, attorneys, judges and court staff "is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading." It also holds attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants accountable for their final work product. The Illinois State Bar Association's Opinion 24-01, sometimes listed as an AI opinion, concerns local counsel in a criminal matter. The ARDC's October 2025 AI guide is practice guidance.

Indiana. An Indiana Supreme Court order of July 14, 2026 (Cause No. 26S-MS-8), effective August 1, 2026, amended Trial Rule 11(B) so an attorney's signature certifies "that any cited legal authority is authentic" and added Trial Rule 11.1, which applies the same certification to parties not represented by an attorney. Both reach submissions "prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, the internet, or other resources," and a court may strike a noncompliant filing. The order says trial judges had reported filings containing "fictitious legal authority or fabricated legal citations." The rules govern trial-court practice and require no AI disclosure.

Iowa. A Supreme Court order of July 21, 2026 adopted Chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, "Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools," effective January 1, 2027. It covers judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, not lawyers; the compiled Iowa Court Rules contain no AI rule for filers. The Iowa State Bar Association's ethics page links ABA Formal Opinion 512 but lists no Iowa AI opinion.

Kansas. Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 (February 27, 2025) created an Ad Hoc Artificial Intelligence Committee to recommend AI policies for court employees and for attorneys, parties and the public. We found no adopted policy or rule.

Kentucky. The Kentucky Bar Association's Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (issued March 15, 2024) answers seven questions on AI. Among them: a lawyer using AI has a duty to review court rules on AI and to review all court submissions that used generative AI to confirm their accuracy, and there is no ethical duty to tell a client about rote use of AI research unless, for example, the client is charged for it or court rules require disclosure. Locally, the 56th Judicial Circuit's rules (Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon and Trigg Counties, effective January 1, 2026) say the court does not prohibit AI but attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify AI-generated content; that rule binds only that circuit.

Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court Technology Commission's Generative AI Guidelines (October 3, 2025) are non-binding guidance for judges and court staff. A January 22, 2024 letter sent on the justices' behalf to the Louisiana State Bar Association says the existing ethical and professional rules are "robust and broad enough" to cover AI in its current forms.

Maine. The Maine Judicial Branch's court rules, proposed amendments and administrative orders pages list no AI rule or order.

Maryland. The Rules Committee's 229th Report proposes amending Rule 1-311 so that an attorney's signature certifies the attorney "has confirmed the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited," along with AI-related comments to the lawyer conduct rules (Rules 19-301.1, 19-301.6, 19-303.3 and 19-305.3). Comments are due November 19, 2026. It is a proposal until the Supreme Court of Maryland adopts it. The Maryland State Bar Association's AI resource hub offers an informational overview, not an ethics opinion.

Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court's interim guidelines (November 12, 2025) apply to judges, clerks and other court personnel and say GenAI may not be used for legal research or legal writing "at this time." In her 2025 State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Budd said the SJC's advisory committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct recommended no AI-related changes.

Michigan. The Michigan Judicial Council's October 2024 workgroup report was "preliminarily of the view that existing rules are likely sufficiently broad" and says it does not represent the Supreme Court's official position. The State Bar's judicial ethics opinion JI-155 (October 27, 2023) says judicial officers must maintain competence with technology, "including but not limited to artificial intelligence"; it applies to judges, not to lawyers.

Minnesota. Judicial Branch Policy 704, effective November 1, 2024, sets principles for AI use by judicial officers and Judicial Branch employees.

Mississippi. A Mississippi Bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI is reported; the Bar publishes its opinions through a member login and we have not reviewed the text, so the table lists it as not confirmed. We found no AI rule on the Mississippi Judiciary's rules and rule-amendments pages.

Missouri. Informal Opinion 2024-11, from the Supreme Court of Missouri's Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee, addresses generative AI and notes that it can implicate the duty of candor to the tribunal. Informal opinion summaries "are advisory in nature and are not binding."

Montana. A Montana Supreme Court order of May 18, 2026 (Case No. AF 07-0031) proposed a new Rule of Evidence 901(c) for evidence a jury could find was fabricated by generative AI; a second comment period closed August 18, 2026, and we found no adoption order. It concerns evidence, not filings. The Fourth Judicial District's local disclosure rule is described above.

Nebraska. The Nebraska Supreme Court's Advisory Committee opinions, listed through Opinion 25-01, include none on AI.

Nevada. The State Bar of Nevada's ethics opinions index includes no AI opinion.

New Hampshire. A Supreme Court order of December 19, 2025 created a task force to recommend a policy on generative AI in judicial decision-making, with a report due January 30, 2026; whether a resulting policy has been issued is not confirmed as of November 6, 2026. The New Hampshire Bar's Ethics Corner article (September 10, 2024) is guidance, not a numbered opinion.

New Jersey. The Supreme Court's Statement of Principles (approved January 23, 2024) covers the judiciary's own AI use. Its preliminary guidelines for lawyers say that "the RPCs do not require a lawyer to disclose the use of AI" but that such use "does not provide an excuse for the submission of false, fake, or misleading content." A court notice for self-represented litigants says they are responsible for making sure all communications with the court, "including those assisted by AI, are honest and truthful." These are guidance, not court rules.

New Mexico. The only AI item among the Supreme Court's recent rule amendments is a jury instruction, UJI 13-719 (effective December 31, 2025), on jurors' use of AI; it does not govern filings. The State Bar of New Mexico's Formal Opinion 2024-004 (September 24, 2024) says lawyers may use generative AI if they do so responsibly; the committee's opinions are advisory only and not binding.

New York. 22 NYCRR Part 161, effective June 1, 2026, says AI use by attorneys and parties "should not be prohibited" and that they "should not be required" to disclose it when submitting papers. Individual courts may adopt an optional model rule under which signing a paper certifies it contains no fabricated or fictitious content, so check the part rules of your judge. The UCS Interim Policy (October 2025) applies to judges and nonjudicial employees. The NYC Bar's Formal Opinion 2024-5 comes from a voluntary association.

North Carolina. The North Carolina State Bar's 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, "Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice," was adopted November 1, 2024.

North Dakota. The North Dakota Court System's Public Notice on the Use of AI (June 1, 2026) says AI tools are "not prohibited," that the courts "do not require disclosure of AI use in court filings solely because AI was used," and that filings must still comply with Rule 11.

Ohio. Superintendence Rule 9.09, in effect since late 2025 as Sup.R. 87 (the official rules list an effective date of October 30, 2025 and an amendment of November 13, 2025, the amendment described by Court News Ohio) and renumbered in the July 1, 2026 restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence, limits courts' use of AI in court interpretation and translation; it does not cover filings. The Supreme Court's AI Resource Library lists no AI filing rule. The Board of Professional Conduct's June 2026 Ethics Guide on AI is nonbinding staff advice that does not reflect the Board's views. Some Ohio trial courts have local AI disclosure rules.

Oklahoma. The Court of Criminal Appeals' Rule 1.17, effective February 18, 2026, requires that any AI-produced or AI-modified portion of a document filed in that court be "verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document," with possible waiver of issues, striking or contempt. It applies only in the Court of Criminal Appeals. A reported March 2026 Oklahoma Supreme Court order on AI is not confirmed.

Oregon. The Oregon Court of Appeals' April 2026 notice says anyone using generative AI to prepare a filing must verify that cited cases exist, that quotations are in them and that paraphrases are reasonable, to avoid sanctions. It is a notice for that court, not a statewide rule, and requires no disclosure. The Oregon State Bar's Formal Opinion 2025-205 covers AI tools generally, and Formal Opinion 2026-208 covers chatbots that communicate with clients.

Pennsylvania. A Supreme Court order (No. 643 Judicial Administration Docket, September 9, 2025) adopted an interim generative AI policy for judicial officers and court personnel, effective December 8, 2025; it does not govern lawyers. The Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association's Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 is advisory and, by its own terms, not binding on the Disciplinary Board.

Rhode Island. A Supreme Court order entered June 17, 2026 amended the comment to Rule 1.1 on technology and adopted interim generative AI guidelines for lawyers and for judicial officers. The guidelines are "advisory in nature" and do not carry the force of law; the lawyer guidelines say lawyers must review AI outputs and verify citations before filing.

South Carolina. The Chief Justice's interim policy order of March 25, 2025 binds judicial officers and employees and bars using generative AI to draft memoranda, orders or opinions "without direct human oversight and approval." It reminds lawyers and litigants that they are responsible for the accuracy of their work but is not a filing rule. The South Carolina Bar's ethics advisory opinions for 2025 and 2026 include none on AI.

South Dakota. The State Bar of South Dakota's ethics opinions index includes no AI opinion through Opinion 2025-01, and the Unified Judicial System's rules hearings page shows no AI rule.

Texas. Misc. Docket No. 26-9054 (June 26, 2026) gave preliminary approval to amendments under which a signer represents that the filing's "legal citations, quotations, and holdings are not fabricated." Comments closed September 1, 2026, and the court said it expected the changes to take effect October 1, 2026, but no final approval order appears on the court's 2026 administrative orders list as of November 6, 2026. The State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee's Opinion 705 (February 2025) says lawyers should always verify the accuracy of responses from a generative AI tool.

Utah. The Utah Judicial Council implemented interim rules on October 27, 2025 for generative AI use in court-related work or on court-owned devices.

Vermont. Administrative Directive 38 (October 6, 2025) authorizes AI use that complies with legal and ethical standards and says all court users, "including self-represented litigants, are expected to review and confirm the accuracy of AI output" given to the courts. It requires no disclosure or certification.

Virginia. The Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use (effective June 6, 2024, amended May 7, 2025) govern people under the Chief Justice's administrative authority, not lawyers or litigants. Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, approved by the Supreme Court on November 24, 2025, addresses fees only: time-based billing must reflect actual time, but charging the same flat fee for AI-assisted work is not per se unreasonable. Proposed Opinion 1902, on duties when opposing counsel files unreviewed AI output, had a comment deadline of July 10, 2026.

Washington. The Board for Judicial Administration's AI Statement of Principles (February 21, 2025) is a statement of principles rather than a use policy. The WSBA's Advisory Opinion 2025-05 addresses AI-enabled tools in law practice; such opinions are educational and do not reflect the bar's official position. The Supreme Court's proposed-rules page listed no AI rule as of November 6, 2026.

West Virginia. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel's legal ethics opinions index lists "L.E.O. 2024-01 Artificial Intelligence." The Judicial Investigation Commission's Advisory Opinion 2023-22 addresses when a judge may use artificial intelligence. The courts' judicial policies page lists no AI policy.

Wisconsin. A rule petition, reported as No. 26-02 and filed in February 2026 by a private individual, would create a Supreme Court rule chapter on generative AI in court proceedings; its status, hearing date and comment deadline are not confirmed as of November 6, 2026. A petition is not a proposal by the court.

Wyoming. The Wyoming Judicial Branch's rule amendments and general orders lists contain no AI order, and the Wyoming State Bar's ethics help page publishes no AI opinion. The AI order often cited as "General Order 25-01" is the federal District of Wyoming's, not the state courts'.

Federal courts: no national AI rule

As of November 6, 2026, none of the national federal rules (Civil, Criminal, Appellate or Evidence) has an AI-specific provision for court filings. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted on April 14, 2026 to drop AI from its agenda, agreeing that rulemaking "would not be appropriate at this time." A new suggestion (26-CV-21) to add a Rule 11(b)(5) certification that "the legal authorities exist and are accurately cited" was on its October 21, 2026 agenda with a staff recommendation to drop it; the outcome of that meeting is not confirmed.

The Fifth Circuit considered an AI certification rule (notice dated January 4, 2024) and declined to adopt it, as its Fletcher v. Experian opinion (February 18, 2026) explains. Some district courts have court-wide orders, such as the District of Wyoming's General Order 25-01 (May 13, 2025), which says filing AI-generated citations to non-existent cases "is strictly prohibited and subject to sanction," and many individual judges have standing orders. Our AI in court hub covers the federal picture in more detail.

Bar ethics guidance: where state opinions fit

The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) applies the ABA Model Rules to generative AI: competence, confidentiality, client communication, candor to the tribunal, supervision and reasonable fees. It is not binding law; each state applies its own rules of professional conduct, and some state bars without their own AI opinion point lawyers to it.

The state opinions in the table generally say a lawyer may use generative AI but must understand its limits, protect client confidences and check its output before relying on it. Opinions from voluntary associations, such as the New York City Bar or the Pennsylvania Bar Association, can be persuasive but bind no one. If you are not a lawyer, see can AI give legal advice? for what AI tools can and cannot do for you.

If you represent yourself

Several of the rules in this table apply to self-represented litigants as well as lawyers. Florida's rule expressly covers filings prepared by unrepresented parties, Connecticut's Section 4-9 applies to "any person" who files, Indiana's new Trial Rule 11.1 covers parties not represented by an attorney, Vermont's directive names self-represented litigants, and Illinois's policy holds self-represented litigants accountable for their final work product.

Courts have sanctioned self-represented litigants for fake AI-generated citations, as our sanctions page shows. Before you file anything an AI tool helped write, look up every case it cites in an official source and read it. Your state court's self-help center, the Legal Services Corporation's "Get Legal Help" finder for legal aid, or your state bar's lawyer referral service can help you find assistance.

What to Watch in 2027

Each item is dated where a date has been set, as of November 6, 2026:

• Maryland Rule 1-311 (November 19, 2026): the comment deadline on the proposed citation-certification amendment. The Supreme Court of Maryland acts by a later Rules Order; no date is set.
• Connecticut (January 1, 2027): the remaining amendments in the June 23, 2026 Practice Book package take effect. The AI sections (4-2(b) and 4-9) are already in force.
• Iowa Chapter 27 (January 1, 2027): the rules on judicial officers' and adjudicative assistants' AI use take effect.
• Arizona (on or before March 1, 2027): the AI Steering Committee's report to the Arizona Supreme Court is due under the August 27, 2026 order.
• California SB 574: news coverage reports SB 574 was signed; we have not read its text, so its duties and effective date are not confirmed.
• Texas Rule 13 and Appellate Rules 9 and 52: no final approval order as of November 6, 2026; no new effective date is set.
• Montana Rule of Evidence 901(c): comments closed August 18, 2026; no decision date is set.
• Hawaii AI declaration order: a committee draft described as under the Supreme Court's consideration in the December 2025 report; its current status is not confirmed and no date is set.
• Wisconsin petition 26-02: reported as filed in February 2026; its status and any hearing date are not confirmed.
• Federal suggestion 26-CV-21: the Civil Rules Committee's decision at its October 21, 2026 meeting is not yet confirmed; no further date is set.

Related pages

• AI in court: rules, sanctions and judges' use
• AI fake citation sanctions
• Can AI give legal advice?
• AI laws by state

This page is general legal information about state and federal court rules, judicial policies and bar guidance on AI in the United States, verified as of November 6, 2026. It is not legal advice. Court rules change, and local courts and individual judges may have their own orders; for advice about a specific case, talk to a lawyer licensed in your state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do courts require you to disclose AI use?

Usually not. As of November 6, 2026, no statewide court rule we confirmed requires filers to disclose AI use as such. Illinois and New York say disclosure should not be required, North Dakota's courts say they do not require it solely because AI was used, and Florida bars its local courts from requiring it. In California, news coverage reports a 2026 statute, SB 574, on lawyers' use of generative AI in court documents; we have not reviewed its text. Some local courts and individual judges do require disclosure, so check your court's local rules and the assigned judge's standing orders.

Which states have court rules on AI?

As of November 6, 2026, among the states we checked, Florida (Rule 2.515(d)(2), in force since June 15, 2026), Connecticut (Practice Book Section 4-9, in force since June 23, 2026) and Indiana (Trial Rules 11(B) and 11.1, in force since August 1, 2026) have adopted statewide rules that put a citation-verification duty on filers. New York's Part 161 (effective June 1, 2026) is a statewide rule on AI in court papers, but it says attorneys and parties should not be required to disclose AI use and leaves any certification rule to individual courts. Maryland and Texas have proposals pending, and Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals has a rule for filings in that court only. A December 2025 committee report said the Hawaii Supreme Court was considering a draft order requiring an AI-use declaration; its status is not confirmed as of November 6, 2026.

Does my state bar have an AI ethics opinion?

Many do, in different forms. As of November 6, 2026, examples include Texas Opinion 705 (2025), Florida Opinion 24-1 (2024), D.C. Opinion 388 (2024), Kentucky Opinion KBA E-457 (2024), North Carolina 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 and Oregon Formal Opinion 2025-205. Other states have practice guidance instead of an opinion. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is often cited where a state has none, but it is not binding law.

Can self-represented people use AI in court filings?

Generally yes, but they are responsible for what they file. As of November 6, 2026, Florida's citation rule, Connecticut's Practice Book Section 4-9 and Indiana's Trial Rule 11.1 apply to self-represented filers, and Illinois's Supreme Court policy holds self-represented litigants accountable for their work product. Courts have sanctioned self-represented litigants for fake citations, so check every cited case in an official source before filing.

Do judges have to follow AI policies?

Where a state court system has adopted one, its judges and staff are covered by it. As of November 6, 2026, examples include California's Rule of Court 10.430, Pennsylvania's interim policy (effective December 8, 2025) and Iowa's Chapter 27 rules (effective January 1, 2027). These policies govern court personnel, not what lawyers or litigants file.