Federal District Court (E.D. Tex.) Adding New Rules About AI Use by Lawyers and by Self-Represented Litigants

From General Order 23-11, effective Dec. 1, 2023, the new Local Rule CV-11(g):

Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services). Litigants are cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. If a litigant chooses to employ technology, the litigant continues to be bound by the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and must review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards. See also Local Rule AT-3(m).

COMMENT: Recent advancements in technology have provided pro se litigants access to tools that may be employed in preparing legal documents or pleadings. However, often the product of those tools may be factually or legally inaccurate. Local Rule CV-11 is amended to add new subsection (g) to alert pro se litigants to this risk. The rule also alerts litigants that they remain bound by the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 when employing such tools to verify all content meets those standards. A similar rule, Local Rule AT-3(m), is added to the standards of practice to be observed by attorneys….

And the new Local Rule AT-3(m):

If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal judgment, believes that the client is best served by the use of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services), then the lawyer is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer's most important asset—the exercise of independent legal judgment. If a lawyer chooses to employ technology in representing a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Local Rule AT-3, and all other applicable standards of practice and must review and verify any computer- generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards.

COMMENT: Recent advancements in technology have provided the legal profession with many useful tools for daily practice. Ultimately, however, the most valuable benefit a lawyer provides to a client is the lawyer's independent judgment as informed by education, professional experiences, and participation in the legal and professional community in which the lawyer practices. Although technology can be helpful, it is never a replacement for abstract thought and problem solving. Local Rule AT-3 is amended to add new subsection (m) to remind lawyers of their continuing duties under applicable rules of practice despite any choice to employ technological tools in the course of providing legal services.

Comments

[KenveeB]

This seems like the best rule to me. You don't need any specific certifications or restrictions, just the same old requirement as always -- you're responsible for the contents of your own briefs. Act accordingly!

[neurodoc]

1) How about a penalty for those submit filings with completely bogus case cites? Maybe dismiss them without prejudice, making them go back and start over.

2) Maybe someone can marry AI software with Westlaw's database so as to avoid bogus case cites. (Are those bogus case cites "plausible" seeming or are they self-evidently phony? Is this what is meant about AI "hallucinating.")

[Noscitur a sociis]

1) How about a penalty for those submit filings with completely bogus case cites? Maybe dismiss them without prejudice, making them go back and start over.

Dismiss what without prejudice?

[Davy C]

Case cites generally aren't in the original complaint. They're in other filings, like motions for summary judgement. Dismissing a case without prejudice for such a reason after the process has run for some time helps no one; you're just increasing everyone's expenses and wasting court time. There should be a penalty, but not that.

[KenveeB]

Dismissing without prejudice isn't really a penalty. It's just a "go back and do it right this time." You're still putting the court and the other side to all the work twice. If you want a penalty, you have to do monetary sanctions, or dismiss with prejudice if it's really egregious.