A Northern District of California judge issued a standing order requiring any filing prepared with generative AI to identify the tool, the portions affected, and the human who verified them. The order applies to all civil matters on the docket and takes effect for filings made after 1 August. Certification is required with each filing rather than once per case. Counsel who cannot make the certification must instead file a short statement explaining why, before the applicable filing deadline.
The State Bar of California updated its practical guidance on generative AI, adding sections on billing, supervision of contract lawyers using AI, and disclosure to courts. The update states that a lawyer may not charge for time not spent, and that efficiency gains belong to the client where fees are hourly. The guidance remains advisory rather than a rule.
Two US law firms filed breach notifications describing ransomware incidents affecting client matter data, together covering roughly forty thousand individuals. Both notifications state that data was exfiltrated before encryption. Neither firm named the vendor or system involved. State attorneys general published the notifications in their breach registries, which is how the incidents became public.
A proposed class action filed in the Northern District of California alleges that marketing claims about hallucination-free legal research were false and misleading. The complaint seeks refunds for subscription fees paid by small firms and solo practitioners. It pleads claims under California's unfair competition law. No defendant has answered, and the docket shows a scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss in October.
Read the long piece on LexRegister