Oklahoma’s highest criminal court has officially told lawyers that if a robot helped write their brief, a human had better double check it first.
On Wednesday, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals signed off on a new rule that requires attorneys to verify any portion of a filing that was produced or altered by generative artificial intelligence before it hits the court’s docket. The move is aimed at stopping bogus or inaccurate citations from slipping into the record and, as the court bluntly warned, unverified AI output can mislead judges and opposing parties. Lawyers who ignore the rule could face formal sanctions.
New rule requires human verification
The order creates Rule 1.17, which says that when generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure that every portion produced or modified by generative AI “has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document.” The order also defines generative AI and makes the rule effective on the date it was issued.
As outlined by Justia, the court spelled out potential penalties for violations, including waiver of the affected issues on appeal, striking non compliant documents, or a finding of contempt.
Presiding judge’s warning
Presiding Judge Gary Lumpkin filed a special concurrence that reads like a pointed reminder to the bar. He stressed that when an attorney signs a filing, it is a certification that the authorities and quoted language inside are accurate, writing that a signer “certif[ies] that all citations of authority … are true and correct” and risks sanctions if they are not…