ORDER ADOPTING NEW PROCEDURAL RULE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

¶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:

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 _18th    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

1 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.