Recommended Free Tools
For filings with the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation, using generative AI to draft, summarize, edit, verify or analyze legal or factual content triggers an AI-use certification and a duty to review the entire filing and verify every citation. The Board’s standing order, issued August 26, 2026, also requires disclosure when submitted evidence was created or modified using AI. Ordinary spell-check and grammar features built into word processors are excluded, according to Hall Booth Smith attorney Brandon H. Wilson’s September 17, 2026 account of the order.
Who and what the order covers
Wilson reports that the Board’s “Directive of the Board regarding use of Artificial Intelligence and Certification of Citations in Filings” took effect immediately on August 26, 2026. It applies to briefs, motions and other written submissions filed with the Board. The described definition covers reliance on generative AI to draft, summarize, edit, verify or analyze legal or factual content in a filing.
The distinction is between AI that contributes to substantive filing content and routine embedded proofreading. Standard spell-check and grammar features in word processors are not included in the definition described by Wilson. For a tool or use that is not clearly routine proofreading, the safer course is to treat it as covered and follow the AI-assisted certification.
What certification to include
Attorneys and unrepresented parties must include the applicable certification, according to Wilson’s report. Choose the statement that accurately describes how the document was prepared. The following language is reproduced in Wilson’s article from the order; the original PDF is linked from that article.
#1 Best Overall
If AI assisted preparation
This document was prepared with the assistance of one or more AI tools. I certify under penalty of perjury that, despite reliance on an AI tool, I have independently reviewed the entire document to confirm accuracy, use of relevant and applicable law, and assertion of relevant and applicable legal theories.
I further certify under penalty of perjury that every citation to law, case, statute, rule, or the record in this document has been verified by me and is accurate and exists as cited and is reasonably believed by me to stand for the proposition cited.
Rank #2
Sale
The Psychology of Money: Timeless lessons on wealth, greed, and happiness
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
If no AI assisted preparation
I certify under penalty of perjury that no part of this document was prepared using any AI tools or platforms.
These are not interchangeable checkboxes. If a generative tool contributed to drafting, summarizing, editing, verifying or analyzing the filing’s legal or factual content, the no-AI statement would not accurately describe that preparation.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How to review an AI-assisted filing
The certification makes the filer, not the AI tool, responsible for the document. Before filing, read the entire submission and independently confirm its accuracy, legal relevance and theories. Check each citation against the underlying authority or record—not merely an AI-generated summary—and ensure it exists as cited and reasonably supports the proposition attached to it.
- Review the whole document. Check factual assertions, legal analysis and the relevance of the law and theories presented.
- Verify every citation yourself. Locate each case, statute, rule or record reference and confirm both its accuracy and what it actually supports.
- Attach the correct certification. Use the AI-assisted or no-AI statement that matches the document’s preparation.
AI-created or AI-modified evidence is a separate disclosure issue
Wilson reports that evidence created or modified using AI must be disclosed when submitted. Examples the article identifies as potentially disclosed AI-generated evidence include reconstruction videos and expert-analysis tools. The key distinction is whether the AI connection is acknowledged: the article describes disclosed AI-generated evidence as permissible, while presenting AI-connected evidence as if it were AI-free is prohibited.
Rank #4
Examples of undisclosed AI-connected evidence given in the article include deepfake videos, fabricated receipts and manipulated photos. A filing’s preparation certification does not replace disclosure about evidence; consider each exhibit’s origin and modification history separately.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Possible consequences and what is not established
Wilson reports that the order provides for civil penalties of $100 to $1,000 per violation and that unacknowledged AI-generated evidence could also be referred to the Board’s Criminal Investigation Division. The article says mistake, lack of expertise or time constraints are not accepted as good-faith excuses. These are reported consequences in the order, not evidence that a penalty has already been imposed: Wilson’s article identifies no violation count or adjudicated sanction under the order.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Sources and scope
This account relies on Brandon H. Wilson’s September 17, 2026 article, “Artificial Intelligence or Allen Iverson: The Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation Provides Guidelines Regarding AI”, which links the four-page Board standing order. The quoted certification text and detailed descriptions above are attributed to Wilson’s reproduction and summary of the order.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
