For attorneys under an AI standing order
When the judge asks, the answer has to already exist.
“Tell me what AI you used, and tell me what you personally checked before you signed it.”
The two sentences behind more than 300 standing orders.
Regulayer makes the answer before it is asked: your certification, the AI Work Receipt, over your name, with HumanMark’s observed creation facts beside it, sealed on your own machine so any later change shows. The judge or opposing counsel verifies it themselves, free, in any browser. No cloud. No account. Nothing phones home. Nothing of yours in any cloud to subpoena.
No account·Nothing leaves your computer·Verified free by anyone, forever
01The obligation
The certification is no longer optional. The only question is whether yours has a record behind it.
Hundreds of courts now require you to disclose AI use, certify human verification, or both. None of them tells you how to evidence it. Your signature says you checked; nothing on the filing shows when you checked, what you checked, or which tools were involved. That is the gap, and it is the one the receipt closes.
The AI is not on trial. The attorney is.
with AI standing orders requiring disclosure or certification in filings, tracked by Ropes and Gray and Bloomberg Law. The orders we have verified against the court’s own documents are in the directory.
and counting, plus uniform circuit rules expected by the end of 2026. What began as individual judges’ standing orders is becoming the default rule of practice.
New York: Part 161, in effect 1 June 2026, asks that you independently ensure no fabricated authority and certify it by signing. Florida: Rule 2.515, case SC2026-0673, effective 15 June 2026, certifies that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with sanctions up to dismissal, costs and fees.
The sanctions record, verified
| Case | Court | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Mata v. Avianca, Inc. | S.D.N.Y., 2023 | $5,000 |
| Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. | D. Wyo., 2025 | $3,000 and revocation of pro hac vice admission for one attorney; $1,000 each for two more |
| Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. | C.D. Cal., 2025 | $31,100, joint and several, against two firms |
| Coomer v. Lindell | D. Colo., 2025 | $3,000 against each of two attorneys |
| Whiting v. City of Athens | 6th Cir. | $15,000 per attorney |
| The largest single penalty so far | Oregon, 2026 | A record single penalty of about $109,700 |
| Bar discipline has begun | First suspensions: People v. Crabill; an indefinite suspension in Nebraska |
Each entry is verified against the court’s own document or contemporaneous reporting, with sources, on the sanctions record. The fine is never the worst of it: the referral, the revocation, and the malpractice claim outlast any number.
02The privilege moat
Everyone else has to hold your work in order to prove it. Regulayer never touches it.
The trap is complete: the proof the court wants, gathered any other way, creates the exposure you are trying to prevent.
If the work is privileged, the question is not how strong the seal is. It is who else now holds the document.
In United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Rakoff ruled from the bench on 10 February 2026 and issued a written opinion on 17 February 2026. Thirty-one documents a defendant had created using a consumer AI tool were held to be protected by neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work-product doctrine. The ground that matters here is the second one: there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality, because the platform’s own privacy policy said it collects inputs and outputs, uses them to train its model, and reserves the right to disclose information to third parties, including the government.
Heppner was a defendant acting on his own, not an attorney, and the decision does not hold that using AI waives privilege. What it establishes is narrower and far more useful: a court will read the terms of the tool you used, and what those terms permit can defeat confidentiality before anyone reaches the merits.
That is the entire reason this is built the way it is. There are no terms permitting us to hold your work, because there is no mechanism by which we receive it. The document is hashed on your own machine. If you choose witnessed time, what leaves is a hash and nothing else, never the work and never a name. There is no payload to train on, to retain, or to produce under subpoena, from us or from anyone. Zero egress is a legal argument, not a feature.
03The record
Three steps. Nothing ever leaves your computer.
Fill the form
Which AI tools were used, for what tasks, what you personally verified, and who signs. Plain questions, mapped to what standing orders actually ask. The story is yours to tell; the receipt records your answers exactly, and never judges them.
Get the receipt
A sealed, signed certification with witnessed time. It answers the order, and it holds up if challenged, because any alteration shows.
Anyone verifies, free
Judge, opposing counsel, your client, your carrier. No account, no server, no copy of your work. The check runs in their own browser.
The part that makes this extraordinary
HumanMark: prove exactly what you did, and exactly what the AI did.
Every other tool guesses: it reads your finished brief, runs a model on it, and returns a probability, and to guess at all it has to read your privileged work. HumanMark is the opposite. It does not read your words and it does not judge them. As you write, on your own machine, it records only how the work arrives: how much you typed live, how much was pasted in, and the exact moment AI text entered. The words themselves never leave your computer.
First strength
Declared
Your signed statement: what you used, what you checked, over your name. It answers the order. In the $349 plan.
Second strength
Observed
HumanMark watches the work arrive as you make it: typed live versus pasted, recorded at creation, never guessed afterward. Also in the $349 plan.
Strongest
Present
At the moment of sealing, a named, enrolled person passes a fingerprint or passkey check on their own device, and the seal is bound to that person, that content, that moment. The $449 plan.
Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Harvey. Connects to none of them. You use your AI tool wherever you already do, then you make the receipt: name which tools you used, for what, what you personally checked, and sign it. Because it records what you state, not what the tool does, it works with any AI tool that exists now or later. Connecting would mean your work leaving your machine, which is exactly what this avoids.
04Live demonstrations
Do not take our word for it. Run the proof, here, now.
Everything below computes in your browser. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is sent to us, and you can watch that with any network monitor.
The attorney’s receipt
Live specimen · sample dataThis receipt is live. Try to forge it: click any value, change one character, then run the verification. The signature is real Ed25519, made in this tab when the page loaded.
Green means the record reads exactly as it was signed. Muted red means it was edited after sealing and is refused. This is the same check a judge, opposing counsel, your client, or your carrier can run, free, without us.
The Sealer
LiveSeal a document on your own machine. Drop any file or paste text; it is hashed and signed in your browser, and only the hash is ever used. The work itself never leaves the page.
Verify it yourself
LiveVerify any receipt, free, no account. A real signed proof is waiting on the page: check it, alter one field, and watch the seal break. Then drop in any Regulayer receipt of your own.
Six demonstrations live in the depot, including HumanMark typing, selective disclosure, the month you cannot edit, and voice & song: proof a human said it, proof a human sang it. Open the demo depot →
05Why not the alternatives
Every other way to prove your AI use has a hole in it. One of them has a hole in your privilege.
The incumbent
The typed Word declaration
A paragraph you write yourself and attach to the filing. It is legally sufficient today in most courts, and it costs nothing. That is exactly why it is the real competitor, and we say so plainly.
But it is undated, unverifiable, and forgeable by anyone, including by you. It is your word with no record behind it, written whenever it was written. It is the scanned signature beside DocuSign: the same legal effect on day one, a different evidentiary weight on the day the signature is challenged. Every sanctions case on this page is a day the signature got challenged.
The guess
AI detectors
Detectors guess after the fact, and they need your text uploaded to guess at all. In a Stanford study, seven widely used detectors falsely flagged essays by non-native English writers 61.2% of the time. A probability score is an accusation, not evidence, and no court can weigh it.
Wrong 61.2% of the time on the writers least able to appeal it, and it requires uploading the privileged work itself.
The trap
Sealed-evidence platforms
Services that take your document into their cloud and vouch for it. The cryptography is often fine. The custody is the problem: to prove your work, they have to hold your work.
After Heppner, custody is disqualifying. What the platform’s terms permit can defeat confidentiality before anyone reaches the merits.
The half measure
Free hash sealers
Hash a file, get a fingerprint, check it later. Honest tools, and the Sealer on this site is one of them, free. But integrity is all they prove: these bytes are unchanged.
No attestation. A hash cannot say which AI you used, what you personally checked, or who signed their name to it. The order asks for a certification, not a checksum.
Liang et al., Stanford University, Patterns (2023): seven widely used GPT detectors averaged a 61.2% false-positive rate on essays by non-native English writers; near zero on native-speaker essays.
06Pricing
One plan. One upgrade. Nothing hidden.
The plan
$349 a month
- The attorney’s receipt (the AI Work Receipt™), unlimited, every filing
- HumanMark: the creation facts, five plain bands
- The Sealer and the verifier
- Answers any court’s standing order
- Runs on your machine, works offline
- Cancel whenever; receipts stay valid forever
The plan, with presence
$449 a month
- Everything in the plan
- Human presence: each seal bound to a named person who passed a fingerprint or passkey check on their own device, at the moment of sealing
- The strongest rung of the HumanMark assurance ladder: declared, observed, present
M. Hale · passkey verified on this device
Bound to this seal at the moment of sealing · 2026-08-04T14:22:07Z (self-asserted time)
Pay for the year up front and you pay for ten months: $3,490 or $4,490 for twelve months. Judge-order packs, the exact requirements of one court’s standing order mapped to the certification, are $295 each, a separate one-time purchase, and stay current while you are on the plan. Firm and enterprise licensing is by conversation: write to us.
For context: a litigation seat already carries several hundred dollars a month in Westlaw, Lexis and Relativity. This sits inside a line item your firm already has, and it is less than one billable hour. Set against the sanctions on record, it is the cheapest line in the matter.
$3,490 a year, against $109,700 and your license.
07Honest limits
What it is, and what it is not.
Attest, never detect
This is a signed, tamper-evident record of what you attested and what your tools observed, at a stated assurance level. It is not a detector, and it does not guess. Every receipt states its assurance level on its face, declared by the signer, or observed by the tool, so a self-report never wears an observation’s badge. Like the certificate behind an e-signature, its strength is that it is reliable, complete, and checkable by anyone, which is exactly what a court can weigh, and what a probability score never is.
Witnessed time, or self-asserted time, said honestly
An independent timestamp authority, using the RFC 3161 standard courts and archives already rely on, can witness the time. Only a fingerprint (a hash) of the receipt is sent, never the work, never a name. If you are offline, the receipt still seals, and it says honestly that the time is self-asserted rather than witnessed. The verifier shows which one you have.
A defense, not a shield
The receipt evidences your process; it does not certify compliance, and it cannot make an unchecked filing safe. It is built to support self-authentication under FRE 902(13)/(14); admissibility is decided by the court. Tamper-evident, not tamper-proof. The certification is yours; the seal is ours.
08The questions attorneys ask first
Asked first, answered plainly.
Who does the certifying, me or Regulayer?
You do. The certification is your attestation, over your name, signed with your own key on your own machine. Regulayer is not a certifier, not a witness, and not a party to your filing. Its software seals what you certify so any later change shows, and anyone can verify it. Like the certificate behind an e-signature: the statement is yours, the seal is ours.
Does my judge’s specific order work with this?
The form maps to what standing orders actually require: disclosure of tools, description of use, and certification of human verification. If your judge’s order asks for something unusual, the receipt carries your exact attestation language. There is a directory of verified orders, each checked against the court’s own document.
Does it read my brief?
No. The certification is about your process, not your content. The document itself is only fingerprinted (hashed) on your machine so any later change shows. The text never leaves your computer, that is the entire point.
Can it show what I actually did, versus what the AI did?
Yes. That is the HumanMark Index. The basic receipt is your signed declaration. HumanMark runs locally and observes the creation facts: what was typed live by you, what was pasted in, and when AI text entered. It places the work into one of five plain bands, recorded at creation, never guessed afterward. It watches how the words arrive, never what the words mean, so it evidences your process without ever reading your privileged text.
Does it work with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, or Harvey?
Yes, with all of them, and it connects to none of them. You use your AI tool wherever you already do. Then you make the receipt: name which tools you used, for what, and what you personally checked, and sign it. Because it records what you state, not what the tool does, it works with any AI tool that exists now or later. Connecting would mean your work leaving your machine, which is exactly what this avoids.
Where do I type? Is there a platform to write in?
Two different flows. For the receipt, you fill a short form, you do not type into any AI. For HumanMark, you write or paste your work into HumanMark’s own box in your browser, on your machine, and it measures how much was typed live versus pasted. You bring your work into HumanMark’s box; you do not type into Claude or ChatGPT for this.
What is the difference between the $349 and the $449 plan?
$349 includes the attorney’s receipt (unlimited), HumanMark in its own box, the Sealer, and the free verifier, all on your machine. $449 adds human presence: a fingerprint or passkey tap that binds each seal to a named person who was there at the moment of sealing. Nothing else changes, and neither plan includes the Chaperone yet.
Why not just use an AI detector?
Detectors guess after the fact, and they need your text uploaded to guess at all. In a Stanford study, seven widely used detectors falsely flagged essays by non-native English writers 61% of the time. This is not a detector. It is a signed, tamper-evident record of what you attested, evidence, not accusation.
What does opposing counsel see when they verify?
Exactly what the specimen above shows: your attestation, the signature check, the witnessed time, and whether the sealed document has changed. Never the work itself.
Who witnesses the time, if nothing leaves my machine?
An independent timestamp authority, using the RFC 3161 standard courts and archives already rely on. Only a fingerprint (a hash) of the receipt is sent, never the work, never a name. If you are offline, the receipt still seals, and it says honestly that the time is self-asserted rather than witnessed. The verifier shows which one you have.
How do I buy it?
A simple monthly plan, $349 a month, or $449 with human presence, for software installed on your machine, working offline. Pay the year up front and you pay for ten months. You can cancel whenever. Every receipt you have already made stays valid forever, and anyone can verify it free, forever, plan or no plan. Today it starts with one email; you will have everything in writing before a dollar moves.
What if someone challenges the receipt?
Then it does its job. Any edit to the receipt or the sealed document breaks the signature and the verifier says so, plainly. A challenged receipt that verifies intact is stronger evidence than any after-the-fact declaration.
09The other market
Telematics for AI conduct.
Motor became priceable when verified telemetry existed. AI conduct has no telemetry, so when a loss arrives the only record of what the AI did is the defendant’s own logs. This is that missing record: content-free, tamper-evident, and verifiable by a party adverse to everyone involved.
For professional-liability carriers: the page written for underwriting.
The order is already on the docket.
The certification takes five minutes.
Run it locally. Your receipts are yours forever. Keep your privilege intact. One avoided sanction pays for it many times over, and anyone can verify it, free.
Try the free Sealer first · Check an attorney’s receipt, free
One email starts it, with a same-day reply. No account, and the software works offline.