Holding / Framework
Standing order pioneers the **broadest-scope framework** for judicial AI governance: requirement applies to *any* AI use in filing preparation, generative or otherwise, with mandatory accuracy verification of every citation to law or record. Among the early-wave standing orders, Baylson's is the most expansive in coverage, characterized by commentators as 'the most unusual of these early orders' for sweeping all AI under disclosure and certification obligations rather than carving the requirement to generative tools alone.
Triggering Conduct
Issued in same May-June 2023 wave alongside Starr, Vaden, and Fuentes orders. Baylson's order distinguished by deliberately broad scope.
Disclosure Requirement
If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence, they MUST disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing, AND CERTIFY that each and every citation to the law or the record in the paper has been verified as accurate. Coverage uses the umbrella phrase 'AI' to describe a variety of advanced technologies, NOT limited to generative AI.
Primary Source
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf · court_website
Tags
3d_circuit, standing_order, disclosure_requirement, certification, broad_scope_framework, all_AI, senior_judge, framework_setter