Judicial Standing Orders on AI: 2026 Update for Family Court Filers in All 50 States

Standing orders requiring AI disclosure on legal filings are spreading rapidly through state and federal courts. This is a 2026 jurisdictional survey of the orders most relevant to family court filers, with the practical disclosure language pro se litigants need to know.

Judicial standing orders requiring disclosure of generative AI use on legal filings have moved from novelty to mainstream. As of early 2026, more than two hundred judges across federal district courts, federal bankruptcy courts, state appellate courts, state trial courts, and state family courts have issued standing orders addressing AI. The orders fall into four broad categories. First, certification orders that require every filing to certify either no AI use or verified AI use. Second, disclosure orders that require disclosure only when AI has generated substantive legal analysis. Third, prohibition orders that ban AI-generated content entirely without prior court approval. Fourth, hybrid orders that combine certification with specific tool disclosure.

Federal practice is leading. Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued one of the earliest comprehensive orders, requiring attorneys and pro se litigants to certify that no portion of any filing was drafted by generative AI or that any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy by a human being using print reporters or traditional legal databases. Judge Stephen Vaden of the Court of International Trade followed with a similar order. Judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Massachusetts, and the Southern District of Illinois have all issued comparable certifications.

State family court adoption is accelerating. In California, several Superior Court judges in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties have issued local standing orders requiring AI certification on family law filings. In Florida, judges in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade), Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward), and Ninth Judicial Circuit (Orange) have issued comparable orders covering domestic relations divisions. In Texas, district judges in Dallas, Harris, and Travis counties have followed.

The substantive requirements are converging on a common pattern. Most orders require: (a) certification of AI use or non-use on every filing, (b) human verification of every citation, (c) human verification of every quoted statutory provision, (d) human verification of every procedural rule referenced, and (e) signature by the attorney or pro se litigant under penalty of perjury or Rule 11 equivalent. The certification is typically a single sentence appended to the filing's signature block.

Practical disclosure language for pro se filers should be specific. A safe template reads: 'I certify under penalty of perjury that no portion of this filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence, OR that any portion drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence has been independently verified by me against the original source. I have personally read every cited case, statute, and rule referenced herein.' This language satisfies the substantive requirements of nearly every standing order currently in force.

Tool-specific disclosure is the next frontier. A small but growing number of judges require disclosure of the specific AI tool used. The disclosure typically takes the form of a footnote or appendix listing the tool name, the version number if available, and the general purpose of use (research, drafting, citation checking). Pro se litigants should be prepared to provide this information if the judge's standing order requires it.

Pro se litigants face a unique compliance challenge. Many AI tools market themselves as 'legal research assistants' and produce output that looks like authoritative legal analysis. The pro se filer who copies this output into a filing without verification is exposed to the same sanctions as an attorney. The standing orders make no exception for pro se status. The duty to verify is personal.

The risk profile for non-compliance is substantial. Judges who have issued standing orders have generally followed through with sanctions when violations are detected. Sanctions have included monetary penalties (typically attorney fee awards to opposing counsel for time spent verifying citations), striking of filings, dismissal of motions, and in custody contexts, adverse credibility findings that affect the merits of the case.

The defensive practice for pro se filers is straightforward. Before every filing, check the standing orders of the assigned judge. Most judges publish their standing orders on the court's website or the judge's individual chambers page. If no standing order exists, default to verification and certification anyway, the absence of a standing order does not eliminate Rule 11 or its state equivalents.

The FamilyCourtHelp.com platform tracks judicial standing orders by jurisdiction and surfaces them in the Court Doc Template Archive intake flow. When a user selects a state and county, the system displays any known AI standing orders for that jurisdiction and prompts the user to include a verification certification on the filing. This is part of the broader verification discipline the platform enforces, the goal is not to discourage AI use but to ensure that AI use is safe.