[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]
In Josephs v. Security National Ins. Co., 2026 WL 2622048 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2026), and Chukwurah v. Midland Mortgage, 2026 WL 2622051 (C.D. Cal. Sep.4, 2026), the court enforced its recently revised Standing Order which provides:
Every motion, pleading, or other paper must attach to the filing a separate declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, disclosing the use or non-use of generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) (e.g., Claude, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Board). The preparer of the filing must certify that either (a) no portion of the filing was drafted by AI, or that (b) AI was used in drafting a portion of the filing, and that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligation. The declaration must identify which, if any, portion of the filing incorporates Generative AI outputs. Failure to submit a declaration attesting to the use or non-use of AI may result in the Court striking the filing.
[emphasis in original].
In Josephs, “Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion, and Defendant’s Reply, each failed to attach an accompanying declaration attesting to the use or non-use of AI in the instant filings.” However, the court did not strike them. Instead, it ordered that declarations be filed.
In Chukwurah, the declarations did not make the mandatory disclosure and the court wrote that it “requires such a declaration prior to considering the merits of the motion.” It then struck the motions without prejudice to re-file conforming motions.
Individualized standing orders such as this are controversial. One argument against them is that they lack the uniformity and vetting that comes with Rules. Should Courts Use Standing Orders or Local Rules to Address A.I.? (Dec. 2, 2023). EDRM has posted a “Repository of Judicial Standing Orders including AI Segments.”
Another question is “what is AI?” ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024), n. 1, states: “There is no single definition of artificial intelligence.” For example, some spell checkers use AI. A Court’s Standing Order on A.I. (Mar. 14, 2026).
The Hon. Ralph Artigliere (ret.), Ethical AI Guideposts for Lawyers Using Generative AI – EDRM (Oct. 31, 2023), wrote:
Care should be taken before resorting to restrictive measures. It is early, the landscape of generative AI products is fluid, and I am in the camp with Judge Paul Grimm, Maura Grossman, and Daniel Brown, who point out that ad-hoc orders may discourage reasonable and appropriate use of GenAI, making legal process more accessible and practicing law more efficient. The learned authors argue that existing rules of procedure and professional conduct already prohibit the exhibited misconduct in those cases without the overregulation and disadvantages of orders banning use or requiring disclosure.
See Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? Judicature, Vol. 107, No. 2, October 2023.
In 🚀 A Call for Education Over Regulation: An Open Letter — Judge Scott Schlegel (judgeschlegel.com), the Hon. Scott U. Schlegel wrote: “In my humble opinion, an order specifically prohibiting the use of generative AI or requiring a disclosure of its use is unnecessary, duplicative, and may lead to unintended consequences…. The legal profession is already guided by stringent ethical standards and professional responsibilities…. A focus on education and adaptability within these existing frameworks would be a more effective way forward.”
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
