Key Takeaways 

• The Eastern District of Virginia (“EDVA”) has not issued district-wide AI standing orders.
• Instead, EDVA judges have addressed AI in case-specific directives that emphasize accuracy and independent verification of citations. 
• Litigants should review all AI-assisted work carefully.

Article 

With the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools to research, edit, and draft court filings, courts have faced a new challenge: fabricated or inaccurate citations.¹ In response, many federal judges, particularly in some of the country’s busiest commercial jurisdictions, have adopted standing orders addressing the use of AI in preparing filings. These orders aim to prevent parties from citing nonexistent authorities or mischaracterizing existing precedent. 

These standing orders take different approaches. Some require parties only to verify the accuracy of AI-assisted work but do not mandate separate or additional filings.² Others mandate that any party using an AI tool to generate any portion of a filing submit a separate declaration disclosing that use.³ 

By contrast, judges in the EDVA, one of the country’s busiest and fastest-moving courts with a substantial commercial docket, have not adopted district-wide or judge-specific standing orders governing AI. The Court instead has addressed AI-related concerns through case-specific orders. Two recent examples come from the Alexandria and Richmond Divisions in cases involving pro se litigants.⁴ Although these orders stop short of establishing broad rules applicable to all litigants, they nevertheless reflect the Court’s longstanding expectations of candor, professionalism, and preparation.⁵ The technology may be new; the standards are not.

Two features characterize the EDVA’s approach so far. First, the approach remains targeted rather than systemic. The absence of a district-wide blanket disclosure requirement distinguishes the EDVA from several other federal courts. AI-related obligations have emerged through individual judges’ case management authority, resulting in directives tailored to specific proceedings. Consistent with that incremental approach, EDVA courts have not yet addressed whether the use of generative AI in preparing legal materials affects claims of attorney-client privilege or work-product production.⁶

Second, when the Court does issue AI-related directives, they emphasize accountability. Several orders have required parties to disclose AI use and certify that all citations were independently verified.⁷ These requirements reinforce that responsibility for the contents of a filing rests with the advocate. Notably, in at least one instance, the Court distinguished between general large language models and AI tools provided by traditional legal research platforms, carving out an exception for tools provided by Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg.⁸ This reflects a measured approach that prioritizes accuracy while recognizing the practical realities of modern research tools. 

While the EDVA has not implemented uniform, district-wide rules on AI, its case-specific directives make one principle clear: accuracy and diligence are essential. In a jurisdiction known for its speed, precision, and professionalism, litigants should diligently verify citations and remain attentive to judge-specific practices. As with other aspects of EDVA practice, familiarity with the Court’s expectations—whether written or unwritten—remains critical as the contours of AI-assisted advocacy evolve. 

Baker Botts maintains a dedicated EDVA practice group that closely monitors developments in the jurisdiction, including evolving guidance concerning AI and other emerging issues affecting commercial litigants. Led by Cailyn Reilly Knapp, who clerked in the EDVA for four years and serves as President-Elect of the Federal Bar Association’s Northern Virginia Chapter, our team combines deep familiarity with the Court’s procedures and culture with extensive experience in high-stakes commercial litigation across industries. For more information about our EDVA practice, please contact a member of our team.

¹E.g., Sarah Martinson, Judges’ AI Orders Keep Trickling In As Fake Citations Persist, LAW360 (July 21, 2025, 1:00 PM), https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2357542. 
²E.g., Standing Ord. for Civ. Cases Before Judge Rita F. Lin, at 7 (Lin, J.) (N.D. Cal.) (last visited Feb. 11, 2026). 
³E.g., Individual R. & Prac. in Civ. Cases, § 1(f) (Ho, J.) (S.D.N.Y., last revised Jan. 8, 2026). 
⁴See Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States, No. 1:25-cv-01349, ECF No. 112 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026) (Brinkema, J.); Powhatan Cnty. Sch. Bd. V. Skinger, No. 3:24-cv-00874, ECF No. 207 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2025) (Payne, J.).
⁵See id.
⁶But see Oral Order, United States v. Bradley Heppner, Case No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026) (determining that the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine did not apply to AI-generated materials). 
⁷E.g., Mwakalindile v. Truist Bank Corp., No. 1:25-cv-00112, ECF No. 55 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2025) (Vaala, J); Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-581, ECF No. 147 (January 29, 2024) (Novak, J.). 
⁸Kromrey, et al. v. Capital One N.A., et al., No. 3:24-cv-00575, ECF No. 35 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2025) (Payne, J.). 

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.