AI Certification in the District of Colorado: Two Judges, Two Different Rules

Two judges in the District of Colorado, two different AI certification rules

If you file in the District of Colorado, whether you must certify your use of generative AI — and what that certification has to say — depends on which judge you are in front of. Two standing orders are in force, they were entered fourteen months apart, and they do not have the same scope, the same signatories, or the same verification standard.

This page sets out what each one actually requires, quoting the orders themselves, and what the practical differences mean for a filing.

Judge Nina Y. Wang — every filing, every contributor

Judge Wang’s Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings took effect 1 December 2025.

Scope: every filing. Not motions, not substantive briefs — every filing must contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI.

Who signs: everyone who drafted. The certification is “signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.” A single signature from the filing attorney is not what the order describes if others contributed.

What it must say when AI was used. Each individual must certify that any language drafted by AI — “even if later edited by a human” — was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy, and that all legal citations reference actual, non-fictitious cases or cited authority.

It is free of charge against your page limit. The order states expressly that the AI Certification does not count against any page limitations, which removes the temptation to compress it.

Consequence. Filings that do not comply “may be stricken without substantive consideration and with leave to re-file a compliant document.”

The order also reminds counsel that everything remains subject to Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and applicable ethical rules — the certification is an addition to those duties, not a substitute for them.

The order supplies two illustrative examples. In substance, the non-use form reads: the undersigned counsel certifies that generative artificial intelligence was not used to draft this filing. The use form names the tool, states that the party was advised of and consented to the use, and certifies that all cited authority was manually reviewed by counsel of record.

That middle element is easy to miss. The example contemplates client consent to the use of AI on their matter, which is a conversation to have before the filing deadline rather than during it.

Magistrate Judge Susan Prose — specific motions, and a specified method

Magistrate Judge Prose’s Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Filings is dated 21 October 2024 and is scoped differently in three ways.

Scope: named motions, in consent cases. In cases where the parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the certification is required in every motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, or to amend a pleading, and in any opposed motion — including the corresponding response and reply, and any proposed amended pleadings.

In the referral posture, narrower still. Where the court is in the referral role, the order applies only to nondispositive, opposed motions referred to that court.

The verification method is specified. This is the sharpest difference from Judge Wang’s order. The preparer must certify either that no portion was drafted by AI, or that AI-drafted language — again, “even if later edited by a human being” — was personally reviewed for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases, attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited authority.

Checking a citation by asking another AI system to confirm it is not what this order describes.

Consequence. The language is not discretionary: the court “will strike any filing from a party who fails to include this certification” in the motions covered.

What the differences mean in practice

Three working conclusions:

1. A single house template will not satisfy both. One requires signatures from everyone who drafted; the other specifies how citations must have been checked. A certification that satisfies Judge Wang’s order may still be inadequate before Magistrate Judge Prose if the verification was done another way, and vice versa.
2. Scope determines whether you need it at all. Before Judge Wang, the answer is always yes. Before Magistrate Judge Prose, it depends on the motion type and the posture of the case.
3. The verification is the substance. Both orders are aimed at the same failure — citations to cases that do not exist. Both explicitly extend to AI text that a human later edited, which closes the obvious loophole.

Before you file

• Read the standing order of the judge assigned to your case. These two are not the only ones, other districts have their own, and orders are amended.
• Decide who counts as a contributor to drafting, and get their signature if the order requires it.
• Verify every cited authority against a reporter or a traditional database, and keep a note that you did.
• If you used a tool on a client’s matter, consider whether the client should be told — one of Judge Wang’s own examples contemplates exactly that.

The tooling angle, briefly

The requirement is not really about AI. It is about whether a human can confirm what a document asserts, quickly enough to actually do it before filing. That is why COAPP attributes every generated brief section to the record documents it came from, and why Lawnova PDF returns document, page and line references rather than summaries — a citation you can open in seconds is a certification you can sign honestly.

Sources: Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings, Judge Nina Y. Wang, D. Colo., effective 1 December 2025; Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Filings, Magistrate Judge Susan Prose, D. Colo., 21 October 2024. Both are published on the court’s website at cod.uscourts.gov. This page is general information, not legal advice; read the operative order for your judge before filing, as standing orders are amended.