Many courts and arbitral institutions are issuing guidelines on the use of generative AI. We compiled a list of them so you don’t have to.
Email me with additions, corrections, or just to let me know if you found this useful: rory@eperoto.com
USA courts are well-served by other trackers, see the bottom of the page for (probably) better sources than here. Let me know if you think we should add more USA coverage here.
Filter for:
| Country | Institution Type | Institution | Document Title | Description | URL | Date | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| _International | Arbitral institution | AAA-ICDR (International Center for Dispute Resolution) | Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools | Practical do’s/don’ts mapped to due process and ethics canons for arbitrators. | https://go.adr.org/rs/294-SFS-516/images/2025_AAA-ICDR%20Guidance%20on%20Arbitrators%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20%282%29.pdf | 2025-03-01 | Arbitration |
| _International | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) | - | Task force active; practical guidance expected but not yet published. | https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/thought-leadership/commission-on-arbitration-and-adr/ | Arbitration/ADR | |
| _International | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) | - | No AI-use guideline publicly available as of 2025-10-11. | https://pca-cpa.org/ | Arbitration | |
| _International | Arbitral/ADR | SVAMC (Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center) | Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (1st ed.) | Best-practice framework incl. non-delegation, disclosure, and model clause. | https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf | 2024-04-30 | Arbitration |
| _International | Arbitral institution | CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) | Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) | Soft-law guideline covering disclosure, confidentiality, tribunal powers, party autonomy, and fairness when using generative AI in arbitration proceedings. | https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf | 2025-09-01 | Arbitration |
| _International | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | HKIAC | - | No AI-use guideline publicly available as of 2025-10-10. | https://www.hkiac.org/ | Arbitration | |
| _International | Professional/Bar | International Bar Association (Mediation Committee) | Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in Mediation | Guidance for mediations, including sample disclosure statement and risk controls. | https://www.ibanet.org/Guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-mediation | 2025-06-19 | Mediation |
| _International | ADR provider | JAMS | Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause & Rules | Rules/clauses for AI-related disputes; arbitration and mediation options. | https://www.jamsadr.com/files/uploads/documents/jams-ai-rules.pdf | 2024-06-14 | ADR (AI disputes) |
| _International | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | LCIA | - | No AI-use guideline publicly available as of 2025-10-10. | https://www.lcia.org/ | Arbitration | |
| _International | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | SIAC | - | No AI-use guideline publicly available as of 2025-10-10. | https://www.siac.org.sg/ | Arbitration | |
| _International | Arbitral/ADR (watch-list) | WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center | - (resources on AI-related disputes; no usage guideline) | Provides model clauses/resources for AI-related disputes; no conduct guideline for AI use in proceedings. | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/artificial-intelligence/ | ADR (AI disputes) | |
| _International | Arbitral institution | VIAC (Vienna International Arbitral Centre) | VIAC Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings (2025) | Non-binding guidance for tribunals, parties, counsel, experts, etc.: non-delegation (humans decide), confidentiality safeguards, responsible/competent use, optional disclosure, PO-1 language, and handling AI-assisted evidence. | https://www.viac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/VIAC-Note-on-AI-1.pdf | 2025-04-01 | Arbitration |
| Australia | Court | Land & Environment Court of New South Wales | Practice Note – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Updated) | Practice note mirroring NSW Supreme Court approach for LEC proceedings. | https://lec.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/lec/documents/practice-notes/Practice_Note_-_Use_of_Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_UPDATED.pdf | 2025-02-12 | Litigation |
| Australia | Court | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Practice Note SC Gen 23 – Use of Generative AI | Statewide practice note governing GenAI use by practitioners and litigants. | https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf | 2025-02-03 | Litigation |
| Australia | Court | Supreme Court of Victoria | Guidelines for Litigants: Responsible Use of AI in Litigation | Guidelines requiring appropriate disclosure and candour on AI use. | https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/AI%20Guidelines%20SCV.pdf | 2024-05-06 | Litigation |
| Australia | Court | Supreme Court of Queensland | Practice Direction 5 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions | Practice direction cautioning that generative AI may produce fictitious sources. Requires identification of the responsible person for submissions and obliges legal practitioners to verify citations; non‑compliance may result in costs orders or refusal to admit documents | https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf | 2025-09-24 | Litigation |
| Australia | Court | Queensland Courts and Tribunals | Guidelines for Non-Lawyers on Using Generative AI in Court & Tribunal Proceedings | Outlines how self-represented litigants and members of the public may use AI tools responsibly when preparing or presenting material before Queensland courts and tribunals. | https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/using-generative-ai-guidelines | 2025-04-15 | Litigation |
| Australia | Court | Queensland Courts and Tribunals | Guidelines for Judicial Officers on Using Generative AI | Guidelines for Queensland judicial officers emphasising understanding AI limitations, maintaining confidentiality, ensuring accuracy, addressing ethical issues, safeguarding security, taking personal responsibility and recognising that chatbots may produce incorrect answers | https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/879714/the-use-of-generative-ai-guidelines-for-judicial-officers.pdf | 2025-09-15 | Judiciary |
| Australia | Court | District Court of Queensland | Practice Direction No. 12 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions | District court practice direction warning that generative AI may fabricate citations. Requires legal practitioners to identify the responsible person and verify the accuracy of all references; non‑compliance may lead to costs orders or disciplinary action | https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/882461/dcpd-12-of-2025.pdf | 2025-09-25 | Litigation |
| Australia | Tribunal | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) | Practice Direction No. 10 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions | Tribunal practice direction requiring parties and practitioners to identify who is responsible for documents and verify references due to risks of AI‑generated hallucinations; warns that misuse may attract costs orders; directs self‑represented litigants to AI guidance for non‑lawyers | https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/884940/qcat-practice-direction-10-of-2025-accuracy-of-references-in-submissions.pdf | 2025-10-17 | Tribunal proceedings |
| Australia | Court (Federal) | Federal Court of Australia | Notice to the Profession – Artificial Intelligence Use in the Federal Court of Australia | Advises practitioners and litigants on disclosure and responsible use of AI in court filings and advocacy; emphasises accuracy, confidentiality, and accountability. | https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/guides/artificial-intelligence | 2025-04-29 | Litigation |
| Austria | Arbitral institution | VIAC (Vienna International Arbitral Centre) | Note on the Use of AI in Arbitration Proceedings (2025) | Practical note for tribunals and parties to enhance efficiency while safeguarding integrity. | https://www.viac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/VIAC-Note-on-AI-1.pdf | 2025-04-01 | Arbitration |
| Belize | Court | Senior Courts of Belize | Practice Direction No. 18 of 2025 – Ethical Use of Generative AI | Practice direction (publicised via press release) guiding judges, magistrates, registrars, attorneys and court users on ethical use of generative AI; emphasises accuracy, confidentiality, verification of AI‑generated content and disclosure; aims to integrate AI ethically into court processes | https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Press-Release-Practice-Direction-No.18-Ethical-Use-of-AI.pdf | 2025-08-12 | Litigation |
| Brazil | Arbitral institution | CAM-CCBC (Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce) | Administrative Guidance No. 07/2025 (Use of AI in Administered Proceedings) | Institutional guidance addressing participants’ responsibilities and confidentiality when using AI; clarifies CAM-CCBC’s own use; applies to arbitration, mediation and dispute boards. | https://www.ccbc.org.br/cam-ccbc-centro-arbitragem-mediacao/en/administrative-guidance-no-07-2025/ | 2025-07-17 | Arbitration/Mediation |
| Canada | Tribunal system | Tribunals Ontario | Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Tribunal Proceedings | Practice direction for parties on AI use and disclosure in tribunal proceedings. | https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Practice-Direction-on-AI_EN.html | 2025-04-01 | Tribunal proceedings |
| Canada | Tribunal | Condominium Authority Tribunal (Ontario) | CAT Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence in CAT Cases | Practice direction for Ontario’s Condominium Authority Tribunal (effective 1 December 2024) stating that tribunal members do not use AI and parties must indicate which AI tool was used. Warns that AI output may be inaccurate, emphasises confidentiality and verification, and notes possible dismissal or cost orders for misuse | https://condoauthorityontario.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Practice-Direction-AI-use-in-Tribunal-Proceedings.pdf | 2024-12-01 | Tribunal proceedings |
| Canada | Court | Federal Court of Canada | Artificial Intelligence (policy page) | Principles and notices on AI use in the Federal Court. | https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligence | 2025-09-25 | Litigation |
| China | Arbitral institution | CIETAC | Provisional Guidelines on the Use of AI Technology in Arbitration | APAC institutional guideline addressing AI use by parties and tribunals. | https://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=384&l=en | 2025-07-18 | Arbitration |
| India | Judicial institution | Kerala High Court | Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary (19-Jul-2025) | Comprehensive binding policy for the District Judiciary in Kerala. AI tools may only be used as assistive tools; explicitly prohibited for findings, orders or judgments; detailed human-verification, audit, training, confidentiality and non-delegation rules. | https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-07-22/mt4bw6n7/Kerala_HC_AI_Guidelines.pdf | 2025-07-19 | Litigation |
| Ireland | Judiciary | Judicial Council of Ireland | Guidelines for Judges: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | Guidance for Irish judges on the responsible use of generative AI tools in judicial work, allowing use for tasks such as summarising material, drafting speeches and administrative documents while prohibiting use for legal research or analysis, and emphasising judicial responsibility, verification of AI output, confidentiality and data protection, bias awareness, and how judges should respond to suspected AI-generated submissions from lawyers or lay litigants. | https://judicialcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/AI%20Guidance%20-%20Guidelines%20For%20Judges%20(June%202024).pdf | 2024-01-06 | Judges & Litigation |
| Jamaica | Court | Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica | Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 – Use of Generative AI in Court Proceedings | Practice direction requiring responsible and secure use of generative AI. Prohibits AI for affidavits, witness statements and expert reports; obliges attorneys and parties to verify AI‑generated text and file a declaration disclosing AI use; sets sanctions for non‑compliance | https://supremecourt.gov.jm/sites/default/files/PRACTICE%20DIRECTION%20NO.%201%20OF%202025%20(Use%20of%20Generative%20AI%20In%20Court%20Proceedings).pdf | 2025-09-17 | Litigation |
| New Zealand | Court | New Zealand Courts (all benches) | Guidelines for Use of Generative AI in Courts and Tribunals | Bench-wide guidance for lawyers and court users. | https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf | 2023-12-07 | Litigation |
| Singapore | Court | Singapore Supreme Court | Registrar’s Circular No. 1 of 2024 – Guide on the Use of Generative AI by Court Users | Court-user guide applicable across Supreme, State, and Family Courts. | https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/circulars/2024/registrar%27s_circular_no_1_2024_supreme_court.pdf | 2024-10-01 | Litigation |
| Spain | Ministry of Justice policy for AI use in the justice administration (nationwide). | https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia/Documents/Spains_Policy_on_the_use_of_AI_in_the_Justice_Administration.pdf | 2024 | Litigation | |||
| Sweden | Arbitral institution | SCC Arbitration Institute | Guide to the Use of AI in Cases Administered under the SCC Rules | Board-adopted guide for SCC-administered cases; flexible and case-focused. | https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/scc_guide_to_the_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_cases_administered_under_the_scc_rules-1.pdf | 2024-10-16 | Arbitration |
| Sweden | Professional/Bar | Advokatsamfundet (Swedish Bar Association) | Allmänna råd rörande användning av generativa AI-modeller i advokatverksamhet | Guidance from the Swedish Bar Association (Allmänna råd, 13 June 2024) on advocates’ use of generative AI in practice. Emphasises confidentiality and GDPR compliance, non-delegation of legal judgment, rigorous verification of outputs, and appropriate client communication. Urges firm-level policies, supervision, and vendor due-diligence (terms, security, retention) before using AI tools. | https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/allmanna-rad-rorande-anvandning-av-generativa-ai-modeller-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf | 2024-06-18 | Professional |
| Switzerland | Arbitral institution (watch-list) | Swiss Arbitration Centre (formerly SCAI) | — | No AI-use guideline publicly available as of 2025-10-11. | https://www.swissarbitration.org/ | Arbitration | |
| Turks and Caicos Islands | Court | Supreme Court of Turks and Caicos Islands | Guide to the Use of Generative AI in Court Proceedings (Practice Direction 1 of 2025) | Practice direction outlining principles for generative AI use. Stresses accountability, accuracy and transparency, warns about bias and hallucinations, prohibits AI for affidavits and witness statements, requires certificates of AI use and disclosure lists, and sets sanctions for misuse | https://tcilii.org/akn/tc/act/practice-direction/2025/1/eng@2025-08-04 | 2025-08-04 | Litigation |
| United Arab Emirates | Court | DIFC Courts (Dubai) | Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 – Guidelines on the Use of LLMs & GenAI | Party-facing guidance for the use of LLMs/GenAI in DIFC proceedings. | https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts | 2023-12-21 | Litigation |
| United Kingdom | Professional/Bar | Bar Council (England & Wales) | Considerations when using generative AI (Guidance for the Bar) | Profession-facing guidance for barristers on safe and ethical use of generative AI: confidentiality/privilege, verification of outputs, non-delegation of legal judgment. | https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/new-guidance-on-generative-ai-for-the-bar.html | 2024-01-30 | Professional |
| United Kingdom | Regulator/Research | Bar Standards Board (BSB) | Technology and Innovation at the Bar (Research report) | Research baseline on technology and AI adoption at the Bar to inform future regulation; not prescriptive guidance but influential. | https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/static/370d1003-9533-4316-87ba75f68a41c357/Tech-at-the-Bar-2025.pdf | 2025-04-28 | Professional |
| United Kingdom | Court/Judiciary | Courts & Tribunals Judiciary (England & Wales) | Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidance for Judicial Office Holders | This refreshed guidance has been developed to assist judicial office holders in relation to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It updates and replaces the guidance document issued in April 2025. It sets out key risks and issues associated with using AI and some suggestions for minimising them. Examples of potential uses are also included. Any use of AI by or on behalf of the judiciary must be consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. This guidance applies to all judicial office holders under the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunal’s responsibility, their clerks, judicial assistants, legal advisers/officers and other support staff. This guidance is published online to promote transparency, open justice and public confidence. | https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf | 2025-10-31 | Judiciary |
| United Kingdom | Professional/Bar | Law Society of England & Wales | Generative AI – the essentials (Guidance hub for solicitors) | Primer and ongoing guidance for solicitors and firms on using generative AI safely: risk, competence, confidentiality, client care; links to further resources and policy updates. | https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/generative-ai-the-essentials | 2024-10-01 | Professional |
| United Kingdom | Regulator | Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) | Risk Outlook: The use of artificial intelligence in the legal market | Regulatory analysis of AI use in legal services with expectations for firms on risk management, transparency, supervision and consumer protection. | https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/artificial-intelligence-legal-market/ | 2023-11-20 | Professional |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang) | Civil Standing Order (AI disclosure & competence) | Requires disclosure when a paper was created or drafted with any AI tool and confirms counsel’s competence and verification obligations. | https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/peter-h-kang-phk/ | 2025-07-16 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Judge Rita F. Lin) | Standing Order for Civil Cases (AI responsibilities) | Reminds that counsel alone is responsible for accuracy; cautions on AI research tools; no blanket ban or disclosure mandate. | https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/lin-rfl/2024-09-18-Civil-Standing-Order.pdf | 2024-09-18 | Litigation |
| United States | Court system (state) | Judicial Council of California | Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80: Generative AI use policies | Requires every California court that allows GenAI to adopt a policy; effective 2025-09-01. | https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430 | 2025-07-18 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | Delaware Judiciary | Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers & Staff | Training, non-delegation, confidentiality, and approval requirements. | https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848 | 2024-10-22 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | Illinois Supreme Court | Policy on Artificial Intelligence (Courts) | Statewide policy permitting regulated AI use; effective 2025-01-01. | https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf | 2025-01-01 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín) | Standing Order for Civil Cases (AI certification & prompt retention) | Requires certification by lead trial counsel verifying any AI-generated content; directs counsel to retain prompts; sanctions for noncompliance. | https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/AMO-Civil-Standing-Order-11.22.2023-FINAL.pdf | 2023-11-22 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. Court of International Trade (Judge Jane A. Restani) | Order on Artificial Intelligence | Requires disclosure of AI-drafted text and certification regarding protection of confidential/BPI information. | https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf | 2025-07-24 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. Court of International Trade (Judge Stephen A. Vaden) | Order on Artificial Intelligence | Requires disclosure of AI-drafted portions; warns about risks to confidential/BPI information; sets certification expectations. | https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf | 2023-06-08 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (civil standing order) | Civil Standing Order - Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence | Requires counsel and pro se parties to disclose any AI used to prepare filings and certify independent verification under Rule 11. | https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf | 2025-02-08 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole) | Standing Order on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Documents Filed with the Court | Requires disclosure of AI use in preparing filings; reiterates Rule 11 obligations to verify authorities. | https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Cole/Artificial%20Intelligence%20standing%20order.pdf | 2023-07-21 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes) | Standing Order for Civil Cases (generative AI disclosure requirement) | Requires disclosure of any generative AI used for research or drafting and description of tool and manner of use. | https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20Order%20For%20Civil%20Cases%20Before%20Judge%20Fuentes%20rev%27d%205-31-23%20%28002%29.pdf | 2023-05-31 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina | Standing Order - In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence | District-wide order requiring AI-use certification; limits certain AI tools except those embedded in standard legal databases. | https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/ECFDocs/StandingOrder_ArtificialIntelligence.pdf | 2024-06-18 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Judge Evelyn Padin) | General Pretrial and Trial Procedures - Use of Generative AI (Section B) | Requires disclosure/certification identifying tool used, portions drafted by AI, and human verification of accuracy. | https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf | 2025-07-08 | Litigation |
| United States | Court system (state) | New York State Unified Court System | Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence | Statewide interim policy for judges, justices and nonjudicial staff; limits AI to approved tools, bans uploading confidential materials to public AI, mandates training and human review. | https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf | 2025-10-10 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Arun Subramanian) | Individual Practices in Civil Cases - Section 8(F) Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools | Permits generative AI use but places responsibility on counsel to ensure accuracy and completeness of filings. | https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices_0.pdf | 2025-03-14 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Judge Christopher A. Boyko) | Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI | Warns against AI-drafted filings; allows standard legal databases and search engines; sanctions possible for violations. | https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf | 2023-12-31 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Gene E.K. Pratter) | Standing Order Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Pratter | Requires disclosure of any generative AI use in drafting and verification of accuracy. | https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf | 2024-05-03 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Michael M. Baylson) | Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson | Requires disclosure of any AI use in filings and certification that all citations are verified. | https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf | 2023-06-06 | Litigation |
| United States | Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Judge Brantley Starr) | Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence | Certification that no filing text was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted text was checked against reliable sources. | https://www.texenrls.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/A-sampling-of-AI-Court-Orders.pdf | 2023-05-30 | Litigation |
| United States | Professional/Bar | American Bar Association (ABA) | Formal Opinion 512 – “Use of Generative AI by Lawyers” | Provides ethics guidance on lawyers’ use of generative AI, covering confidentiality, competence, supervision, and communication duties. | https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/ethics_opinions/formal_opinion_512/ | 2024-07-17 | Professional |
| United States | Professional/Bar | The Sedona Conference | Navigating AI in the Judiciary: New Guidelines for Judges and Their Chambers | Practical guidelines for U.S. judicial officers and their chambers on responsible AI/GenAI use (principles, risks, and suggested uses). | https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/NavigatingAIintheJudiciary_PDF_021925_2.pdf | 2025-02-19 | Judiciary |
| United States | Court | Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal (Judge Scott U. Schlegel) | AI in Chambers: A Framework for Judicial AI Use (v1.1) | Internal-use framework from Judge Schlegel outlining how chambers can adopt GenAI for drafting and workflow, with cautions and caveats; not official court policy. | https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63c35a0b6817d035ea368c19/t/68c87476f545721848a413d1/1757967478473/AI_in_Chambers_v1_1_Judge+Schlegel.pdf | 2025-09-01 | Judiciary |
Last updated: 2025-11-10
Other useful guides can be found here:
- IAPP Global AI Law and Policy Tracker
- (USA) – Ropes & Gray AI Court Order Tracker
- (USA) – NSC AI in State Courts
- (USA) – RAILS – Analysis of AI Use in Courts
- (USA) – BCLP AI Legislation Tracker
- (USA) – Law360 Federal Judge Orders on AI
- (USA) – (paywall) – Bankruptcy – PracticalLaw – AI Use in Bankruptcy Tracker
- (USA) – (paywall) – LexisNexis – Generative AI Rules Tracker
- (USA) – (paywall) – BloombergLaw – Litigation, Comparison Table – Federal Court Judicial Standing Orders on Artificial Intelligence
- Legal 500 AI Guide
Disclaimer
Use at your own risk. Not legal advice. There could be mistakes … in fact there probably are: we spend most of our time making great software, not researching AI Guidelines.
About Eperoto
Eperoto is a tool for dispute lawyers to perform better dispute risk assessments, visually and quantitatively.
Used by firms globally from AmLaw 100 to litigation boutiques as well as litigation finance, insurance and mediators. We help lawyers reach better dispute outcomes, faster.