{"resourceId":"brewster-county-tx-court-standing-order-ai-certification-20261103","versions":[{"version":"external-cc66d146d8c5600becee854ce9904c7fe1b51eddcab3199485665141ce9ca15f","resource":{"id":"brewster-county-tx-court-standing-order-ai-certification-20261103","title":"Brewster County, Texas court orders attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify human verification of any AI-generated content before filing","organization":"County Court of Brewster County, Texas (Judge Greg P. Henington)","sector":"Courts / generative AI in filings","geography":"Brewster County, Texas, United States","publishedAt":"Standing order signed Nov. 3, 2026","publicationDate":"2026-11-03","eventDate":"2026-11-03","sourceName":"Texas Courts Local Rules (Brewster County Court)","sourceLabel":"Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence","sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3183","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","knowledge-work"],"finding":"The Brewster County Court signed a standing order on Nov. 3, 2026 that applies to every pending and future case. It says generative AI systems are unreliable, prone to bias and often fabricate information. Attorneys and self-represented litigants who use AI for legal research or drafting must sign and submit a form certifying that all AI-created language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and analysis were verified through non-AI legal sources by a human or a Texas-licensed attorney, and that they understand they can be sanctioned. The order is effective immediately, stays in effect until rescinded and may be amended.","sledRelevance":"Shows the certification-and-verification model courts are adopting for AI-assisted filings, which affects legal technology vendors and public defenders, prosecutors and clerks who draft with AI tools.","evidence":"Primary court order and attached certification form; no data on compliance, enforcement or effect.","architectureImplications":"Filing workflows may need a field or attached form recording AI use and verification; the order does not specify system changes.","governanceImplications":"Requires signed certification, places responsibility on the filer and warns of sanctions under professional conduct rules, civil procedure and inherent court power.","securityPrivacyImplications":"None stated; the order concerns accuracy of filings, not data handling.","caveats":"Single county court order; certification wording requires verification by a Texas-licensed attorney, which may be hard for self-represented litigants; no enforcement history.","streamIds":["public-safety"],"roles":{"sales":"Use the order to open conversations with court clerks, prosecutors and public defenders about AI use policy and filing workflows. Offer to help map who uses AI, how citations get verified, and how the certification form is captured. Do not promise fewer sanctions or time savings. Remember this is one small county court, so avoid presenting it as a statewide or national requirement.","engineering":"The order creates a human-verification step, not a technical control. Consider whether document and case management systems should record AI use, attach the signed certification and keep a link to the verification sources. Citation checking tools should be treated as aids, since the order requires non-AI sources. Proof of value is certification completeness and citation errors caught before filing. This is interpretation from a single source with limited transferability.","delivery":"Help court and legal offices write a short AI use procedure: who certifies, how verification is documented, where the form is stored and what happens when a filing lacks it. Train staff on the form and on hallucinated citation risks. Name an owner for questions and track the order’s amendments, since it can be changed at any time. This is interpretation from a single source with limited transferability."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Courts and filers need a simple way to show that AI-generated content in filings was verified.","stakeholders":["County judge","Court clerk","Prosecutors and defenders","Private attorneys","Self-represented litigants"],"discoveryQuestions":["Who in the office uses AI for drafting?","How are citations verified today?","Where would the certification be stored?"],"valueHypothesis":"A documented verification workflow can reduce risk of sanctions; no savings are claimed.","potentialEngagement":"AI use and verification procedure for filing offices.","unsupportedClaims":["That the order reduces fake citations","That it applies outside Brewster County","That tools can replace human verification"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Records AI use certification and verification evidence alongside filings; no model evaluation implied.","architectureIntegration":"Add certification form capture and verification notes to document management workflows.","prerequisites":["Standardized form","Filing metadata field","Staff access to non-AI legal sources"],"constraints":["One county order","No technical requirements stated","Verification must be non-AI"],"security":"No data handling requirement stated; protect filings per existing court rules.","proofOfValue":["Share of filings with certification when AI used","Citation errors caught before filing"]},"delivery":{"work":"Draft and train on an AI use procedure and capture of the certification form.","dependencies":["Court approval","Clerk workflow changes","Counsel input"],"ownership":"Court clerk or office administrator.","skillsAdoption":"Train staff and attorneys on verification and the form.","governanceCheckpoints":["Procedure review when order is amended","Periodic compliance check"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Form collected for AI-assisted filings","Verification method documented"],"risks":["Order changes without notice","Self-represented litigants cannot comply","Inconsistent enforcement"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-11T03:52:18Z","enrichedAt":"2026-11-11T03:54:44Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Self-represented litigants must find non-AI verification, which may be a barrier; the order does not address support.","procurementImplications":"Not applicable beyond filer certification.","operatingModelImplications":"Courts add a signed certification step to filing practice.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3183","referenceExcerpt":"before using any AI-generated information in a Court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}