Tenth Circuit Becomes the Latest Federal Court to Require AI Certification From Attorneys

By Hector Herrera | November 11, 2026 | Legal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a rule on November 10 requiring attorneys to certify that any court filing prepared with generative AI assistance has been independently reviewed by a human — one who verified every cited authority, confirmed the accuracy of quotations, and confirmed that the document complies with procedural rules. The proposal extends a standard that is rapidly becoming the default across the federal judiciary.

Why Courts Are Moving on This

The catalyst for attorney AI certification rules was a series of incidents in which lawyers submitted AI-generated briefs containing fabricated case citations — a problem the courts now call "hallucinated authority." The most prominent early case, Mata v. Avianca in the Southern District of New York in 2023, resulted in sanctions and national coverage. It established a template: AI drafting without human verification creates professional responsibility liability that courts are increasingly unwilling to leave as an abstract ethical obligation.

New York enacted a statewide rule in June 2026 requiring certification for all AI-assisted filings in state courts. At the federal level, more than a dozen district courts have adopted similar local rules. The Tenth Circuit's proposal would extend the obligation to the appellate level within its jurisdiction.

What the Rule Requires

According to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's analysis, attorneys filing with the Tenth Circuit would be required to submit a certificate disclosing:

1. Whether generative AI was used in preparing the submission
2. If used: that a licensed attorney reviewed the entire document and independently verified all cited authorities against their primary sources — not via AI verification of AI-generated citations
3. Accuracy confirmation: that all quotations are accurate and not generated or altered by AI
4. Procedural compliance: that the document meets all applicable rules independent of any AI-generated representation that it does

The proposed rule is open for public comment through January 15, 2027, and is expected to take effect no later than March 2027. The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and three tribal jurisdictions.

What It Means for Law Firms

For attorneys, the rule adds procedural overhead to any AI-assisted brief. Human review cannot be delegated back to AI — the certification specifically requires a licensed attorney to independently verify citations at their primary source, which means opening the case in Westlaw or Lexis and reading it, not asking an AI if the citation is accurate.

For legal tech vendors selling AI drafting tools — Harvey, CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI, Thomson Reuters AI — the rule creates pressure to build certification workflow integrations into their platforms, so law firms can generate and file the required certificate without a separate manual step.

For clients, the efficiency calculation changes. AI drafting can accelerate the assembly of a brief. But if each AI-assisted document requires the same billable attorney review that a human-drafted document would, the cost savings may be smaller than initially projected. Firms that have marketed AI-driven efficiency gains to clients will need to be precise about where in the workflow those gains actually occur.

The Broader Pattern

The Tenth Circuit's proposal is not isolated. It follows:

• New York's June 2026 statewide rule for state court filings
• Local rules at district court level in at least 12 circuits requiring similar disclosure and verification
• The Northern District of California's 2025 rule, one of the earliest in the country, which served as a model for many subsequent proposals

The emerging judicial consensus is clear: AI is acceptable as a drafting aid, but human accountability for every word in a court submission is non-negotiable. Courts are treating the "I relied on AI" defense the same way they treat "I relied on opposing counsel's representation" — it's not a shield from professional responsibility.

What to Watch

The question is whether the Judicial Conference of the United States moves to adopt a uniform national rule. As more circuits independently publish their own proposals, the administrative pressure for a single standard across all federal courts increases. Uniform Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments require a multi-year rulemaking process, but the advisory committees could move faster if circuit-level rules produce conflicting standards that create compliance complexity for firms practicing in multiple circuits.

A national rule is likely before the end of 2027. Watch for the advisory committees to begin formal consideration at their spring 2027 meetings.

Source: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck