In a series of high-profile ethics debacles, attorneys who used generative AI technology found themselves in hot water after they negligently relied on fictitious cases and false statements of law crafted by the technology. These attorneys mistakenly relied upon the output they received from a generative AI product without verifying and validating that output. Their embarrassing ethical breaches made national news, and spurred judges to implement standing orders that require attorneys to disclose their use of AI technology.

Scholars were quick to criticize these standing orders and the standing orders are rife with problems. But are they needed? Or are the standing orders redundant because Civil Rule of Procedure 11 can address this problem?

Generative AI and the filing of briefs that contain fictitious cases and false statements of law is testing the reach of Rule 11, which is coming up lacking. This Article is the first to study and evaluate whether Rule 11 can effectively address litigant use of generative AI output that contains fictitious cases and false statements of law. In this Article, I contend that, while the failure to perform adequate research is conduct that can be reached through Rule 11, the rule is not well-suited to the task of regulating this behavior, and Rule 11’s inadequacy is likely spurring the creation of these standing orders. I then analyze the benefits and detriments that inure from these standing orders, setting forth various considerations for judges and jurisdictions to weigh when evaluating whether to impose their own standing orders, revise current standing orders, or promulgate local rules to regulate litigant use of generative AI technology.