In late 2022, when the launch of ChatGPT introduced the world to the power of generative AI, courts may have suspected attorneys were using the tool to help them with research and writing.
Today, courts generally assume that is the case. In fact, a growing number of courts are now putting guidelines in place that define the steps attorneys must take in order to include artificial intelligence in the legal process.
While the emergence of AI-related guidelines helps attorneys to know what is acceptable, they also create the risk of sanctions when guidelines and best practices are ignored. And as a recent case in Oregon revealed, those sanctions can be quite costly.
Need more clues? Ask the Sherlock chatbot (lower right corner) to summarize this story, explain technical concepts or answer other questions.
The case, which was tried in the U.S. District Court in the District of Oregon, resulted in attorneys being ordered to pay more than $100,000 in fines and attorney fees due to filing documents that included AI hallucinations.
The judge’s order in the case states the plaintiffs “filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities.” It also states the plaintiffs and their attorneys were not “adequately forthcoming, candid, or apologetic about their conduct.”
For attorneys, the Oregon case should serve as a wake-up call. Using AI to assist with case prep may save you time, but it could cost you considerable money, not to mention the reputational damage that can follow such a misstep. Those who want to avoid such a fallout should adopt safeguards that identify AI errors before it is too late. And in some courtrooms, higher standards must be met.
What AI-related rules do attorneys face?
Avoiding the legal landmines related to AI use is challenging because of the lack of official federal standards. As of April 2026, the U.S. Justice Department had not issued nationwide rules governing AI. Rather, attorneys must deal with a patchwork of orders issued by judges for particular districts.
For example, two of Florida’s largest judicial circuits have official measures in place that require documentation and certification aimed at protecting against AI-generated errors. On Jan. 15, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan issued Administrative Order No. 26-04 to address “Disclosure Of Use Of Artificial Intelligence By Attorneys And Self-represented Litigants.”
The order says, among other things, that any “attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record, must disclose such use on the face of the filing.”
Failure to comply with the order can trigger sanctions that include “striking the filing; denial of the requested relief; monetary sanctions; contempt proceedings; referral to The Florida Bar or other appropriate authority; and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the Court.”
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Florida issued a similar order on Jan. 26 that states the use of AI for researching and drafting legal documents “raises important concerns including, but not limited to, confidentiality of the client, candor to the tribunal, diligence, compliance with court rules of procedure and with the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.”
The order says attorneys can use “AI technologies” only to the extent that they can “reasonably guarantee compliance” with their “ethical obligations.” It further requires attorneys to identify for the court the specific AI tools used to help them with “preparation, researching, drafting pleadings, drafting documents, filing documents, and/or discovery requests.”
The two Florida orders, while not binding in other jurisdictions, point to the type of due diligence attorneys should be incorporating into their AI use. To stay safe, attorneys should make sure to disclose when they have used AI and certify they have independently verified the information AI provided before including it in court filings.
Attorneys should also be aware that disclosures and certifications may not be enough in certain jurisdictions to avoid violating AI standards. According to a recent report by the American Bar Association, some judges in Illinois and Ohio have barred AI use by attorneys altogether.
How can attorneys use AI safely?
Safe usage starts with knowing the expectations of the court in the jurisdiction where you are practicing. Beyond that, attorneys need to know their own capabilities when it comes to safeguarding against the type of violations that can lead to sanctions.
Those who want to take full advantage of AI’s capabilities will need to put systems in place that flag AI-generated errors. Committing to “human-in-the-loop” practices ensures AI-generated content is deemed accurate and reliable by a human before it winds up in the hands of a client or judge.
Smaller firms or independent attorneys with fewer resources might err on the side of caution by limiting their AI use to tasks that don’t involve ethical risks. Leveraging it to clean up court documents rather than to research and draft them can avoid risks that could lead to sanctions.
Attorneys looking for further insights can explore guidance provided by their state bar association. Associations in dozens of states have published information that explains what rules are in place and what practices can keep attorneys in compliance.
Lacking federal rules, attorneys may need to be prepared to vary their approach to AI use depending on the court where their case is being heard. But regardless of the jurisdiction, attorneys should generally expect they’ll be held accountable for any mistakes, fabrications, or hallucinations they bring to the court. Consequently, attorneys should ensure AI’s output is verified or be prepared to face sanctions.
Be First to Comment