10th Cir. Local Rule AI-26 Compliance

AI Legal Filing Compliance Workbench & Verification Log

Mandatory human review, citation cross-examination, and court-admissible AI certification generator

Federal Appellate Rule Directive: Lawyers filing in federal court must certify that any sections drafted, augmented, or researched with generative artificial intelligence have undergone independent human verification for citation veracity and factual accuracy under Rule 11.
Compliance Status
Ready for Certification
Risk Score
Low Risk (0 Warnings)
Verified Citations
2
Human Review Checklist
4/4 Completed

1. Filing Specifications & Draft Text Verified Scan

Detected Authorities & Citation Integrity

2 Authorities Recognized
  • United States v. Henderson, 425 F.3d 123 (10th Cir. 2005) Reporter Validated
  • Smith v. Ohio, 494 U.S. 541 (1990) Reporter Validated

2. Human Review Audit Checklist

Verified every statement of fact directly matches the certified district court record / appendix.
Personally read each cited decision; confirmed valid pinpoint pages, active good law status, and absence of hallucinations.
Confirmed legal analogies, standard of review, and statutory interpretations reflect counsel's independent professional judgment.
Affirmed compliance with 10th Circuit and Federal Rule requirements regarding generative AI tool disclosure.

3. Court-Admissible Certification Date: 2026-09-18

I, Sarah Jenkins, Esq., hereby certify that any portions of this filing prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence have been thoroughly reviewed by counsel for accuracy and compliance with local circuit rules.

Sarah Jenkins, Esq. (Bar No. 44821)
United States v. Meridian Corp., No. 24-1042 (10th Cir.)
Tool: Custom Legal LLM / Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Verified: 2026-09-18 | Audit ID: 10CIR-VERIFIED-9821

Audit Ledger & Admissibility Dossier

Deterministic audit hash generated for court filing submission attachment


    
Enjoy this tool? Build your own with Super