A Federal Court in Texas Requires a Certificate When AI Helps Draft a Pleading

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has a Standing Order MC-11 for its Beaumont Division. Its title is "Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence." A district judge signed it at Beaumont on July 20, 2026.

A party that uses generative AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading must say so. It does that in a certificate included with the pleading. It must also certify that it independently verified the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool. Parts of the order follow, not the whole.

Generative AI in Filings

The order says the use of generative AI in preparing filings has grown increasingly frequent. That holds in this court and in courts across the United States, it says. The court recognizes that AI can be a beneficial tool. It says that is especially so for litigants appearing pro se. They often lack the resources to prosecute or defend their interests effectively.

But the order says these tools can, and often do, produce "fictitious legal authority" that can pose serious risks. It quotes a 2023 decision that says many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions. For instance, the opposing party wastes time and money exposing the deception. The court's time is taken from other important work. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. Judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors may suffer harm to their reputation. So may a party to whom fictional conduct is attributed. The practice promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity.

Reminders and Sanctions

The order reminds all parties who appear before the court of their obligations. Those come from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the district's Local Rules. That covers parties represented by counsel and those appearing pro se, in criminal and civil cases.

Rule 11(b)(2) requires a party filing any litigation document to certify that its claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted. They must rest on existing law, or on a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. The district's Local Rules caution attorneys and pro se litigants that AI may produce factual and legal inaccuracies. They remind all litigants that they are responsible for reviewing and verifying the contents of their filings.

Under its inherent supervisory authority, the court says, it may impose sanctions for filing documents that violate these principles. Sanctions may include fines or dismissal of the responsible party's case. They may also include directives such as completing education programs, reporting to the relevant disciplinary boards, and other appropriate measures. That AI was used to create the offending document "will not excuse or absolve ethical infractions," the order says.

The Certificate

In addition, the court imposes a disclosure and certification requirement on all parties when they submit a filing. It applies whether they are represented or pro se, in criminal or civil cases.

A party that uses AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading must include a certificate with it. The order calls it a "Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage." The certificate must disclose the use of AI. It must certify that the party has independently verified the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool. The party must further certify that the use of AI has not resulted in the disclosure of confidential or privileged information to an unauthorized party.

The certificate puts on paper a check the Local Rules already remind every filer to make, and the party certifies it.