We have written about AI use in legal practice before. Cherokee County Superior Court has now joined the growing list of courts telling lawyers in plain terms: use AI if you must, but own the work.
The Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit’s new standing order requires attorneys and self-represented litigants in every civil and criminal case to disclose when artificial intelligence is used to “prepare, draft or review” court filings and to certify that the filing, citations, statutes, and record references have been independently verified. Failure to comply can lead to sanctions, attorney’s fees, disciplinary referral, or the filing being stricken. Mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints are not good-faith excuses for non-compliance.
Why Payne Changed the Stakes
This didn’t come out of nowhere. The immediate backdrop is the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Payne v. State, 324 Ga. 305 (2026), where the Court found that the State’s filings included nonexistent or misattributed case citations after an assistant district attorney used AI to draft trial-court briefs and a proposed order without verifying the generated citations. The Court rebuked the lawyer and the Clayton County district attorney’s office, suspended the attorney’s privilege to practice before the Georgia Supreme Court for six months, and required additional continuing legal education as a condition of reinstatement.
The proposed order made the consequences especially serious. Because the signed order contained fictitious or misattributed citations, the Supreme Court vacated it and directed the trial court to issue a new order that counsel for neither party could prepare. Payne is therefore a warning about more than briefing: unverified AI output can move from a party’s work product into the court’s own ruling.
Georgia’s Growing Patchwork of AI Orders
Cherokee County is not acting in isolation. Other Georgia courts have already adopted similar AI disclosure or certification requirements, including Fulton County (through judge specific standing orders), DeKalb County Superior Court, and the Mountain, Appalachian, and Southern Judicial Circuits. The details vary, but the theme is consistent: if AI is used to prepare, draft, review, or in some courts even alter filings or evidence, the lawyer must disclose that use and certify that all legal authorities and record citations have been independently verified. Georgia lawyers should expect AI disclosure rules to become increasingly common and should check the assigned judge’s current standing orders, local rules, case-management orders, and filing instructions before filing.
The Broader National Response
Of course, Georgia is not alone. Federal courts have been moving in this direction since at least 2023, when Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued an early order requiring lawyers appearing before him to certify either that no generative AI was used or that any AI-generated content was checked by a human against traditional legal sources. Other courts have taken different approaches. Some demand disclosure and a separate certification; others rely on existing signature, candor, competence, and supervision duties. Whatever the policy choice, an applicable order must be followed exactly.
The now-famous Mata v. Avianca, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), sanctions order out of the Southern District of New York made the same point more painfully: AI is not improper by itself, but lawyers have a gatekeeping duty to ensure filings are accurate. There, counsel submitted a brief containing fake, AI-generated case citations and then failed to correct the problem when challenged, resulting in monetary sanctions, required notice to the client and judges, and public discipline for violating their Rule 11 duty to verify filings. That sanctions order remains the cautionary tale.
What Lawyers Should Do Before Filing
First, assume every court may soon have an AI rule, whether local, judge-specific, or standing. Check before filing.
Second, treat AI as a drafting assistant, not legal authority. No case, quote, statute, record cite, or procedural rule should make it into a filing unless a lawyer verifies it in Westlaw, Lexis, official reporters, the court record, or another reliable source.
Third, keep an internal AI log. If a tool was used, note which tool, for what task, and who verified the output. That makes disclosure easier and protects the lawyer if questions later arise.
Fourth, never put confidential client information into an AI tool unless the lawyer understands the platform’s privacy, retention, and training practices and has appropriate client authorization.
Finally, and we have urged this before, firms should adopt a written AI policy now. The policy does not need to be dramatic. It should say who may use AI, what tools are approved, what cannot be entered, how citations must be verified, and when disclosure is required.
The lesson is simple: AI can help lawyers work faster, but it cannot carry a lawyer’s professional judgment. In the broad sense, courts are not banning technology; they are insisting that lawyers remain lawyers. We think it is the right direction.
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice.