Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Adds Rule for Generative AI

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

Published February 18th, 2026

Detected March 2nd, 2026

Summary

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has adopted a new rule governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting documents for court filings. The rule requires parties or counsel to verify the accuracy of any AI-generated content before filing.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has issued a new rule, effective February 18, 2026, mandating the verification of any generative artificial intelligence (AI) content used in documents submitted to the court. This rule, designated Rule 1.17, addresses concerns about AI's potential for misinformation and hallucination in legal drafting. Parties or their counsel must ensure that any portion of a document produced or modified by generative AI has been verified for accuracy by a responsible person.

This new rule imposes a direct obligation on legal professionals practicing before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Failure to comply may lead to sanctions, including waiver of issues, striking of documents, or a finding of contempt. Legal professionals must update their drafting and review processes to incorporate this verification step for all AI-assisted filings.

What to do next

Verify accuracy of all generative AI-generated content in court filings.
Update internal procedures to include AI content verification.

Penalties

Sanctions may include waiver of affected issues, striking of non-compliant documents, and/or a finding of contempt.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

IN RE: ADDITION OF A NEW RULE TO THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Citations: 2026 OK CR 7
Docket Number: CCAD-2026-1
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Syllabus

¶1 Recognizing the novel and rapid development of generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI") and its use in the practice of law, as well as its potential to produce misinformation or even to hallucinate, 1 we find that a Rule should be adopted by this Court governing the use of generative AI in drafting any document for filing in this Court. Pursuant to Section 41 of Title 20 and Section 1051 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, we hereby add, adopt, and promulgate this new Rule of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals , Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2026), set forth as follows:

Combined Opinion

OSCN Found Document:IN RE: ADDITION OF A NEW RULE TO THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN RE: ADDITION OF A NEW RULE TO THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2026 OK CR 7
Case Number: CCAD-2026-1
Decided: 02/18/2026
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Cite as: 2026 OK CR 7, __ P.3d __ ORDER ADOPTING NEW PROCEDURAL RULE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Section I. GENERAL RULES OF THE COURT AND DEFINITIONS

Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

A. Use. When generative artificial intelligence ("generative AI") has been used in the drafting of any document for filing in this Court, the party, or their counsel, shall ensure that any portion of the document produced or modified by generative AI, whether in whole or in part, has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document.

B. Definition. For purposes of this Rule, "generative artificial intelligence" or "generative AI" is defined as any type of artificial intelligence that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user.

C. Sanctions. Failure to comply with the above requirements may result in the imposition of sanctions by this Court including, but not limited to, waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of a non-compliant document from the record, and/or a finding of contempt.
¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Rule shall become effective on the date of this order.

¶3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶4 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this _ 18 th day of February, 2026.

________________________________________________
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge

________________________________________________
WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, Vice Presiding Judge

________________________________________________
DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge

________________________________________________
ROBERT L. HUDSON, Judge

________________________________________________
SCOTT ROWLAND, Judge

ATTEST:

Clerk

FOOTNOTES

See, e.g., Opinion and Order on Sanctions, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443, No. 22-cv-1461, (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (finding plaintiff's counsel "abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT . . . .").

LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE: SPECIALLY CONCUR

¶1 I write to point out the fact that anytime a lawyer signs his or her name to a document they are, by their signature certifying by that signature that all citations of authority, and cases in the document are true and correct, and all quoted language is accurate and correctly referenced. This means by signing any document that proves to be incorrect in any of these uses of legal authority subjects the lawyer to sanctions and disciplinary actions.