AI-Use Disclosure & Certification

DLC-M08-002 · Post-Mata Practice Pack

Matter

Filed In

If you are using generative AI in any workflow that touches a filing, this pack gives you the disclosure language, the internal certification workflow, and the two matter types where we recommend declining to use it at all. Draft, adapt, and file with a partner review. Praise is nice. Criticism is useful.

Section 1 · Which Courts Require Disclosure?

As of 2026-Q1, the following categories of federal court require some form of AI-use disclosure:

Standing orders (specific judges): N.D. Tex. (Starr), D.D.C. (Beryl Howell), E.D. Pa. (Baylson), and others. List is growing quarterly.
Local rules (specific districts): Several districts are drafting or have adopted rules requiring AI disclosure in specific contexts.
State bar guidance: California, New York, Florida, and others have issued ethics opinions addressing AI-use disclosure to clients and courts.

Read the standing orders Before every filing in a court new to you, read the judge's standing orders and the local rules. When in doubt, disclose. The cost of over-disclosure is negligible; the cost of under-disclosure is Mata.

Section 2 · Disclosure Clauses — Copy-Paste Ready

2.1 · Standard AI-Use Disclosure (in-filing footer)

Certification of AI Use. Counsel certifies that: (1) generative artificial-intelligence tools were used to assist in the preparation of this filing; (2) the specific tools used were []; (3) every citation contained herein has been verified by counsel; (4) every substantive statement of law or fact has been reviewed by counsel; and (5) counsel accepts full responsibility for the content of this filing.

2.2 · No-AI Certification (some judges require this affirmative statement)

Certification of Non-Use. Counsel certifies that no generative artificial-intelligence tools were used to draft, cite-check, or otherwise assist in the preparation of this filing.

2.3 · Discovery-Response AI Disclosure (broader)

Disclosure of AI-Assisted Discovery Workflow. The producing party discloses that generative artificial-intelligence tools were used in the following workflows: []. The tools used were []. Every AI-assisted classification was reviewed by a human reviewer before it influenced a coding call or entered a production. Validation procedures per DLC-M04-002 were applied. Aggregate performance metrics are available on reasonable request.

Section 3 · Internal Certification Workflow

For every filing where AI was used, the following workflow completes before filing:

Step 1 · AI-Use Log

Attorney logs, in the matter file:

The tool and version used
The prompt (or prompt template) used
The raw AI output
The date, time, and identity of the operator

Step 2 · Verification

Attorney verifies:

Every citation exists and stands for what the filing says it stands for
Every quotation is verbatim
Every factual claim is supported by cited authority or the record
Every legal argument reflects the attorney's professional judgment, not AI's

Step 3 · Second-Attorney Review

A second attorney (not the AI operator) reads the filing and independently confirms Step 2. Sign-off is captured in the matter file with the reviewer's name and date.

Step 4 · Partner Certification

The responsible partner certifies that Steps 1–3 have been completed. The partner's certification is retained regardless of whether the filing itself contains a disclosure clause.

Step 5 · Retention

The AI-use log, prompts, raw output, and certifications are retained for the life of the matter plus the firm's standard retention period. These may become discoverable — treat as case-file materials.

A note on Step 5 Some courts are ordering discovery of AI prompts and raw outputs where AI was used in ways affecting the record. Prepare to produce these; if you would not want them produced, do not use AI in that workflow.

Section 4 · Internal Certification Form

Filing description
Filing date
AI tool(s) used
AI operator (attorney)
Log location
Verifying attorney
Second-attorney reviewer
Second review date
Certifying partner
Partner certification date

Section 5 · Matter Types Where We Recommend Declining AI Use

Delphoria position Two matter types warrant a categorical decline on generative AI use. This is a recommendation, not a rule — but the reasoning should apply generally.

5.1 · Matters involving the AI vendor itself

If your matter involves the AI vendor whose tool you would use, do not use that tool. The conflict is both technical (the model may have been trained on the very case law you're litigating) and reputational (opposing counsel will exploit it). This includes:

Litigation against a foundation-model provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, xAI, etc.).
Litigation involving the vendor's downstream customers on issues touching the model's outputs.
Antitrust or IP matters where the vendor is a party or a material third party.

5.2 · Matters where AI output would enter the record as evidence

If AI-generated content would itself be offered as evidence (e.g. an AI-generated summary offered under Rule 1006, an AI-generated timeline offered as a demonstrative), do not use consumer-grade generative AI for that purpose. Custom-built, reproducible tooling with retention of prompts, model versions, and system logs is required. Consumer AI's outputs are not sufficiently reproducible or explainable for evidentiary use.

Section 6 · Standing Order Compliance Checklist

Before filing in any court, run this checklist:

6.1 · Judge's standing orders read for the specific division/chambers.

6.2 · Local rules checked for AI-use provisions.

6.3 · Applicable state bar guidance reviewed for the attorney's licensing jurisdiction(s).

6.4 · Disclosure clause included in filing OR affirmative non-use clause included (as required).

6.5 · Internal certification workflow (§3) completed and logged.

6.6 · Every citation cite-checked against Westlaw/Lexis (not against the AI's own suggestions).

6.7 · Partner sign-off recorded before filing.

Section 7 · Client-Facing Disclosure

Separate from court disclosure, most state bar ethics opinions require or recommend client disclosure of AI use. Adapt this to your engagement letter:

Use of Artificial-Intelligence Tools. In the course of representing the Client, the Firm may use generative artificial-intelligence tools to assist in tasks including but not limited to legal research, document review, drafting, and analysis. The Firm will: (a) use only tools approved under its internal information-security policies; (b) not input privileged or confidential Client information into any tool that has not been vetted under those policies; (c) verify the output of any such tool before relying on it; and (d) retain full professional responsibility for all work product. The Firm will not charge for time spent using an AI tool at a rate higher than a human attorney would have charged for equivalent work.

Section 8 · Sample Cross-Filing Response

If opposing counsel objects to your AI-use disclosure or challenges the underlying workflow, use this response as a starting point (adapt to jurisdiction):

Counsel's use of generative artificial-intelligence tools in the preparation of the [filing] was consistent with the applicable standing orders, local rules, and professional obligations. Counsel:

1. Used approved tools, listed in the disclosure certification;
2. Verified every citation and factual statement;
3. Obtained second-attorney review before filing;
4. Retained the certifying partner's sign-off;
5. Preserves prompts, raw outputs, and workflow logs for any judicial or opposing-counsel inquiry.

Counsel is prepared to provide, on the Court's direction, further detail on the workflow, tooling, and verification procedures employed. Counsel's use of AI does not diminish counsel's obligations under Rule 11 or the applicable rules of professional conduct, and counsel has fully discharged those obligations.

Section 9 · Partner Sign-off

Certifying Partner Signature

Date

Final rule This pack lives with the matter. It moves through the lifecycle of every AI-touched filing. When the matter closes, the pack is retained per firm policy — because when a Mata-style question arises three years later, the workflow record is the answer.