AI Regulation Tracker / Administrative order
DOL Order Makes Filers Responsible for AI-Assisted Work
On July 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges issued an administrative order making attorneys and self-represented parties personally responsible for the assertions they submit in OALJ proceedings, and warning that inaccurate AI-assisted filings can draw sanctions.
On July 8, 2026, the Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges issued an Administrative Order in Case No. 2026-MIS-00004, signed by Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen R. Henley. The order does one main thing. It tells everyone who files in front of these judges that they are personally on the hook for the assertions they put in front of the tribunal.
What the order actually says
That responsibility falls on attorneys and on self-represented parties alike. If you submit material that was drafted or researched with an AI tool and it turns out to be inaccurate, you are exposed. For ordinary filings, the relevant certification and sanctions provisions are 29 C.F.R. Sec. 18.35(b) and (c). Separately, Sec. 18.57 governs discovery, and its discovery sanctions can go as far as dismissal or default. The order also points to the certification duty in Sec. 18.50(d)(3). So the exposure is not limited to briefs and motions. It reaches discovery material too, which is where a lot of AI-generated errors tend to hide.
It is worth being precise about what this order is not. It does not create a universal duty to announce that you used AI every time you use it. There is no blanket disclosure mandate here. What the order does is reinforce four things that were already true and make them explicit: you are responsible for what you file, AI-assisted work has to be checked before it goes in, your existing certification obligations still apply, and inaccurate submissions carry real consequences.
The order also carries a data-protection instruction that lands directly on how you work. Before you put anything into an AI tool, you are expected to safeguard confidential or sensitive information and to understand that tool's data-retention and security practices. In practice that means knowing whether a given tool trains on your inputs, how long it keeps them, and who can access them, before a privileged document or a client's personal data ever goes near it.
Who is bound, and where the line is
The scope is specific, and the specifics matter. This order governs proceedings before the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges, including applicable Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals proceedings. That is the perimeter.
It does not reach all U.S. courts. It does not reach the federal court system generally. It does not sweep in every federal administrative proceeding across every agency. If you practice in front of OALJ or handle BALCA labor certification appeals, this is aimed squarely at you. If you do not, treat it as a weathervane rather than a rule that binds your filings.
That boundary is worth flagging hard, because it is easy to see a headline and assume a new nationwide AI rule just landed. It did not. What landed is one tribunal system tightening the expectations for the people who appear before it.
So what this means for how you work
The practical takeaway is a verification duty backed by sanctions exposure. If your practice touches OALJ or BALCA, the safe operating posture is simple. Treat any AI-assisted output, whether it is a legal argument, a citation, or a document produced in discovery, as a draft that is wrong until you have checked it against the primary source yourself. Every case citation gets pulled and read. Every factual assertion gets traced back to something real in the record. The certification you sign means you did that work, not the model.
Under the OALJ's general filing rules at 29 C.F.R. Sec. 18.35, the judge can sanction inaccurate certified filings, and Sec. 18.57 adds separate sanctions for discovery violations. The order makes clear that AI as an excuse does not lower that exposure. The model does not sign the filing. You do.
This fits a broader pattern that has been building across tribunals. More and more, judges and adjudicators are responding to AI-fabricated citations and made-up authorities not by banning the tools but by reminding filers that responsibility never left the human. The DOL order is a clean example of that approach. It keeps the perimeter narrow, it leans on rules that already existed, and it puts the accountability where it always sat. This is a scope-limited order, not a signal that every court in the country just adopted the same standard, and it should be read that way.
Questions professionals are asking
Does this order require me to disclose whenever I use AI?
No. It does not create a universal AI-disclosure obligation. It reinforces that you are personally responsible for the assertions you file, that AI-assisted work must be verified, that existing certification obligations still apply, and that inaccurate submissions can be sanctioned.
Which proceedings does it cover?
Proceedings before the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges, including applicable Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals proceedings. It does not extend to all U.S. courts, the federal court system generally, or every federal administrative proceeding.
What can happen if AI-assisted material I file turns out to be inaccurate?
For ordinary filings, the certification and sanctions rules are 29 CFR 18.35(b) and (c). Section 18.57 separately governs discovery, and its sanctions can include dismissal or default. Either way, the person who signs the filing is responsible, and the exposure covers discovery material, not just briefs and motions.
Does this apply to self-represented parties, or only attorneys?
Both. The order makes attorneys and self-represented parties personally responsible for the assertions they submit in OALJ proceedings.
RELATED BRIEFINGS
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.