loupe.legal

Guides

The statewide rules of 2026 on AI and citations.

Five states answered the fabricated-citation problem in their rules of procedure this year, and the answer is the same in each: the signature carries the verification. Here is what each one says, in its own words.

Written 5 November 2026. Loupe reports what the sources say; it is not legal advice.

The pattern

Verification, not disclosure.

None of the five asks for a certificate to be drafted. Four make the act of signing or filing the representation that the citations were verified; New York says in so many words that disclosure of AI use should not be required, and offers courts a model rule that works the same way. California alone adds a duty to disclose, in its new Business and Professions Code section, beside the verification duty in its rule of procedure. The words are below, quoted from each court’s or legislature’s own document; each has a page of its own with the source linked and the day it was read.

California, from 1 January 2027

Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)(2), as amended by SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858)

“(2) (A) A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.”

Signed on 30 September 2026 and in force from the first of the year, for every paper filed in any California court. The same act adds Business and Professions Code § 6068.1, which asks an attorney who uses generative AI to verify its output, including every case and statutory citation, and to disclose its use to the court. The California page.

Florida, since 15 June 2026

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2)(D), as amended (SC2026-0673)

“(2) Representation by Signer. On filing, each signer represents that: … (D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

Made by signing: the signature itself is the representation, for every document filed in a Florida state court, and since the same day Florida’s circuits may not add disclosure or certification requirements of their own. The Florida page.

Indiana, since 1 August 2026

Ind. Trial Rule 11(B), as amended (Order 26S-MS-8)

“(B) Certification. The signature of an attorney certifies that the … has read the pleadings, motion, or other submission; that to the best of the attorney’s … that any cited legal authority is authentic; and that it is not … delay or harass.”

The attorney’s signature is the certificate; a self-represented party’s signature certifies the same under the new Rule 11.1, and a new Rule 11.2 lets a court treat a filer who cites fictitious authority as an abusive litigant. The Indiana page.

Connecticut, since 23 June 2026

Practice Book § 4-9, Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance (new)

“(b) Due to the risk that generative AI can create inaccurate factual and legal information, including, without limitation, faulty citations to legal authority, fabricated quotations from such authority, and inaccurate or fabricated evidence, any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI. The failure to do so may result in court-imposed sanctions, including, without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment. (c) Any person who files documents with the court represents that they have reviewed this rule and, by filing the document, represents that they have made good faith, diligent efforts to ensure compliance with their obligations under this rule, all other rules of practice, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and any applicable provision of Connecticut law regarding the use of or reliance on generative AI.”

Filing the document is the representation that the rule was followed. In the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court, since 14 July 2026, the signature on any paper certifies compliance with § 4-9, and failing to verify AI-produced citations is listed among the grounds for sanctions. The Superior Court page; the appellate page.

New York, since 1 June 2026

22 NYCRR Part 161 and its Appendix A model rule (AO/75/2026)

“attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers. … any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(b), filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before this court is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content.”

Part 161 binds every court of the Unified Court System and asks for no disclosure; the model rule in its Appendix A applies only where a court has adopted it as a part rule, and there the signature certifies the review. The assigned judge’s part rules say whether it did. The New York page.

And the federal courts

No national rule; one circuit’s proposal, one circuit’s refusal, and standing orders judge by judge.

The Tenth Circuit proposed 10th Cir. R. 46.5(B)(4), proposed, to take effect on 1 January 2027 if adopted, under which a human must have verified the existence of every cited authority and the accuracy of every quotation before a document prepared with generative AI is filed; the Fifth Circuit considered a rule and decided against one. In the district courts the duty is set by each judge’s standing order, and they differ: some want a certification, some the name of the tool, some the parts it drafted, two forbid it. Every one Loupe has read, quoted from the court’s own document.

What it means for the work

The rules name a duty the signature already carried, and make it explicit: every citation, verified, by the person who signs.

The practical change is where the hour goes. It cannot be delegated to the drafting tool, and it is not satisfied by a second tool’s assurance; the attorney has to have looked, or to know what was looked at and by whom. How to check the citations in a brief is the work; Loupe does the lookups and keeps the record of what was checked, against what, on what day, and drafts the statement a particular court asks for from the parts you tick. The order in force on the day is what counts: each page links the court’s document, and says when it was read.

Check a filing

Paste the brief or drop the file, and Loupe looks up every citation in the published record. It doesn’t generate anything, and what it can’t settle it marks “not verified”, never clean.