Indiana Court Rule Raises Stakes for AI Missteps
Effective August 1, a recently revised Indiana court rule gives that state‘s trial judges the authority to impose tough sanctions on litigants who submit any pleadings “citing fictitious legal authority.” The new rule will require attorneys to draft court filings with the greatest care, or risk crippling sanctions.
The Indiana court rule, Cause No. 26S-MS-8, was promulgated in July following complaints from state trial judges. Commentary accompanying the rule revisions indicates that Indiana’s high court acted because numerous trial courts had expressed concerns regarding “voluminous and disorganized litigant filings, including filings prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence and filings containing fictitious legal authority or fabricated legal citations.”
It converts a hallucinated case into a rule violation subject to sanctions, with no proof required that the signer knew the citation was false.
Under the newly revised rule, an attorney’s signature now certifies four things:
- factual contentions have evidentiary support,
- legal contentions rest on existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to change the law,
- any cited legal authority is authentic, and
- the filing does not seek to delay or harass.
All jurisdictions, as well as professional ethics norms applicable nearly everywhere, require that factual assertions have evidentiary support and legal arguments have a good-faith basis in existing law. However, Indiana’s authenticity certification is new and powerful. It converts a hallucinated case into a rule violation subject to sanctions, with no proof required that the signer knew the citation was false. The rule covers every attorney submission to the court, including work produced with artificial intelligence, the internet, or other research resources.
Abusive Litigants Beware
New Rule 11.2 empowers trial courts to closely supervise lawyers whose conduct earns them the ignominious title of “abusive litigant.” An abusive litigant is a lawyer or self-represented party that:
engages in conduct that may include, but is not limited to, filing frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or repetitive claims; litigating claims in bad faith; citing fictitious legal authority; or egregiously violating the Rules of Trial Procedure or Rules on Access to Court Records.
The presence of fictitious legal authority — a distinguishing characteristic of AI-authored pleadings circa 2026 — authorizes the trial judge to tag the responsible attorney as an abusive litigant. Rule 11.2 lists eleven remedial measures that trial courts may impose on abusive litigants. Among them:
- requiring the attorney to accompany future filings with an affidavit certifying under penalty of perjury that the allegations are true to the best of the filer’s knowledge, information, and belief;
- directing the filer to attach to future complaints a list of all cases previously filed involving the same, similar, or related cause of action;
- requiring the attorney to provide specific page citations to documents alleged by the filer to support an argument or position;
- limiting the attorney’s ability to request reconsideration or to file repetitive motions;
- limiting the number of pages or words of pleadings, motions, and other submissions to the court;
- limiting the amount or length of exhibits or attachments that may accompany a filing.
Most of the remedial measures cited above do not directly address AI hallucinations; but all of them will make life difficult for any attorney tagged with the “abusive litigant” label. Sanctions follow bad faith or failed remedies, after an opportunity for hearing. Trial courts may impose drastic measures: default, dismissal with prejudice, expenses, and attorney’s fees, and may direct them at the attorney rather than the client.
The court rule governing depositions were revised as well. Under revised Rule 30(B)(2), an attorney who notices an early deposition, claiming the witness will soon leave the state, must now certify the supporting facts as true. A false certification now draws remedies under Rule 11(C) or any other applicable authority.
AI Hallucinations Attract Attention Nationally
Indiana isn’t the first state to demand that attorneys certify the accuracy of AI-generated submissions to the court.
The Florida Supreme Court amended its rules earlier this year to require attorneys stand behind AI-created work. In Florida, an attorney’s signature on a pleading represents that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The Florida rule took effect June 15, 2026. Available sanctions include reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
In New York, revised 22 NYCRR Part 161 obliges any lawyer who uses an AI tool to carefully review the paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. Litigators preparing witnesses should read the rule closely, because Part 161 reaches deposition-related work product that later migrates into court submissions.
And in California, legislation working its way through the General Assembly (SB574) would require attorneys to disclose the use if artificial intelligence in their work and “verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations. The term “outputs” is broad, potentially covering any AI-generated materials created for use in litigation — not just case citations.
Many other jurisdictions have addressed artificial intelligence use in court filings, albeit from individual judges or county-wide policies. Readers interested in monitoring changes outside their local jurisdiction may wish to consult Ropes & Gray’s legal AI governance tracker, which reports that 18 states now have court-ordered rules that mandate disclosure or AI-use verification by attorneys. This is a fast-moving policy development environment. Attorneys should be vigilant for changes in their jurisdiction as well as trends and best practices identified by policymakers elsewhere.