Holding / Framework
Standing order establishes the **Rule 11-grounded framework** for judicial AI governance: rather than creating a new AI-specific certification regime, the order reaffirms that existing Rule 11 obligations apply to AI-assisted filings. Order language: 'Just as the Court did before the advent of AI as a tool for legal research and drafting, the Court will continue to presume that the Rule 11 certification is a representation by filers, as living, breathing, thinking human beings, that they themselves have read and analyzed all cited authorities to ensure that such authorities actually exist...' Holds explicitly that 'mere reliance on an AI tool' does NOT constitute reasonable inquiry under Rule 11.
Triggering Conduct
Issued during the May-June 2023 wave of judicial response to AI-hallucination filings. Fuentes' approach distinct from same-period orders by Starr (N.D. Tex.) and Baylson (E.D. Pa.) in declining to create a new certification regime.
Sanctions / Disposition
null (enforcement via Rule 11 sanctions for noncompliance with the underlying duty to ensure citations exist and arguments are warranted)
Disclosure Requirement
Any party using any generative AI tool to conduct legal research or to draft documents for filing must DISCLOSE in the filing that AI was used. Disclosure must include the specific AI tool and the manner in which it was used. NO separate certification regime is created, order anchors enforcement in existing Rule 11.
Primary Source
Tags
7th_circuit, standing_order, disclosure_requirement, no_certification, rule_11_framework, framework_setter, magistrate_judge