What Do Courts in Your Jurisdiction Say About Gen AI Use?

Check rules before you file to avoid becoming a national example of lawyers behaving badly

It should be crystal clear to every lawyer by now that using generative artificial intelligence for research or brief writing assistance without checking the cites and reading the cases is a no-no. Even so, courts and judges continue to debate whether to implement specific rules governing AI use.

Some judges require a lawyer who writes a brief using AI to notify the court and certify that they checked the citations. Others ban AI use altogether. Others take the opposite approach, noting the existing requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and similar state rules that a lawyer must have a good faith factual and legal basis before signing a pleading or motion and so no new rules are needed. Still other judges have voiced concerns that requiring disclosure of AI use will deter lawyers from embracing AI, and thus slow the ability of lawyers to take advantage of this promising technology that clients are already demanding. Regulating lawyer use of AI around the country is a patchwork design at best.

We should not expect any uniform guidance from courts or bar associations for quite a while, as AI continues to emerge and we all figure out how to use it. But what do the courts in your jurisdiction say right now about AI use? Neither Alabama nor Tennessee have issued guidance regarding AI use, although they are both exploring the issue. The same is true with the 11th and 6th Circuits.

However, some judges have their own rules or preferences. Therefore, before filing a pleading or motion in a particular court, you should always check the local rules, standing orders, and the particular judge’s webpage.

For example, in the Northern District of Alabama, Chief Judge Haikala’s initial order contains section XI, simply reminding lawyers of the potential dangers of AI technology use and of their obligations under Rule 11 and ethical standards to verify AI generated content to confirm its accuracy. However, Judge Axon’s initial order requires counsel and pro se litigants to “disclose the use of [AI] in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court” by signing and filing under penalty of perjury a specific disclosure, the language of which is contained in her order.

Judge Axon’s order goes on to caution counsel and pro se parties that the court “does not recognize mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints as a good faith excuse for submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure rule. In particular, arguments in briefs that are supported by AI-generated caselaw (i.e., cases or quotations from cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable. Failure to comply with this rule may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and including dismissal or default judgment.”

It does not appear that any other judges in Alabama or Tennessee federal courts have issued specific AI rules (although some have issued judicial opinions in cases where lawyers have submitted hallucinated case law). However, keep in mind that AI is an emerging technology and the guidance will be in flux for some time. ALWAYS check to confirm the judge’s rules or preferences before you file, and ALWAYS check the cites and read the cases before submitting any AI generated materials to any court.

---

About the Author

Sharon Stuart, President & Claims Counsel

Attorneys Insurance Mutual of the South

Sharon is a founding partner of Christian & Small LLP in Birmingham, where she practices complex insurance, business, and class action litigation. She is a former President of the Alabama Defense Lawyers Association, past President of the Birmingham Bar Association, and is Chair of the Alabama Supreme Court Standing Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure. She is a Fellow of the Alabama Law Foundation, the Birmingham Bar Foundation, and the American Bar Foundation.

Sharon is the 2025 recipient of the Tony McLain Professionalism Award, which recognizes outstanding, long-term service in the advancement of professionalism by a living member of the Alabama State Bar.