New York Courts Tell Lawyers to Check AI, Not Disclose It

New York’s state court system has published practical guidance for lawyers who use generative AI to draft court papers. The Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts released The Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Papers: What Every Attorney Should Know, a seven-page guide announced in a Unified Court System news release dated October 26, 2026. The release says the document was reviewed and approved for public distribution by the court system’s judicial leadership.

The guide does not create a new rule. It explains one already in force and makes clear New York’s answer to the question every court now faces: require lawyers to disclose AI use, or hold them to the accuracy duties they already have. New York picked the second option.

What the Guide Says

According to the release, the guide covers why generative AI tools produce errors, how to avoid them and which duties apply. It describes large language models as tools that generate text by predicting likely word patterns rather than verifying facts, which is how fabricated cases and inaccurate quotations end up in briefs.

The practical advice is specific. The guide urges attorneys to confirm every AI-generated citation and quotation through authoritative legal research tools, to review AI-generated text for bias or inappropriate content, and to document the steps they took to verify material produced with AI assistance. That last point is the one most firms have not built into their workflows yet.

“AI tools can help enhance efficiency, but they also carry risks that demand caution and informed oversight. This document lays out a clear, common-sense approach to using AI responsibly,” Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas said in the release.

First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Norman St. George described the goal in similar terms.

“This guidance, developed through the Advisory Committee’s thorough research and deliberation, helps ensure that practitioners have a foundational understanding of how generative AI works, the risks it presents, and the steps necessary to prevent misuse,” he said.

Law.com reported the guide on October 27 as a reference work that builds on the rule New York adopted earlier this year.

The Rule Behind It

That rule is Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, adopted by Administrative Order AO/75/2026 on March 25 and in effect since June 1, 2026. It applies to all courts of the Unified Court System in civil and criminal cases. Its policy section says AI use in preparing court papers “should not be prohibited” and that attorneys and parties “should not be required” to disclose AI use when they file, because the duties that govern every filing already apply.

Part 161 also gives individual courts a model rule they may adopt in their part rules. Under that model rule, anyone who uses an AI tool to prepare a paper “is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.” Signing the paper certifies that the review happened, and a court that finds otherwise may impose sanctions or other remedial action. The New York State Bar Association noted when the rule took effect that judges keep discretion to adopt the model rule, write their own, or add nothing.

The new guide restates that position plainly. Attorneys are not required to disclose AI use at filing or to sign separate certifications beyond the implicit certification made by signing a paper, according to the release.

How New York Compares

This puts New York in the verification camp rather than the disclosure camp, and it is a contrast with what Pennsylvania is weighing. As we reported in Pennsylvania Weighs an AI Certification on Every Court Filing, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court committee has proposed a statewide notice that would add a certification of AI review to each filing, with comments due November 24. Neither state asks filers to name the tool they used. The difference is whether a separate certification is required at all.

Florida took a third route. The Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule 2.515 so that a signer represents that the legal authorities cited exist and are accurately cited, whether or not AI was involved. That approach, like New York’s, builds the duty into the signature rather than into an AI-specific form.

What Firms Should Do Now

The documentation advice is the part most likely to matter later. If a filing is challenged, a firm that can show who checked each citation, against which research tool and when, is in a far better position than one that can only say a lawyer read the brief. That suggests a simple verification log attached to the matter file, not a new product purchase.

Firms should also check the part rules of the judges they appear before. Part 161 sets a statewide floor, but individual judges may still adopt the model rule or their own requirements.

Common Questions

Do New York lawyers have to disclose AI use in court filings?

No. Part 161 says attorneys should not be required to disclose AI use when filing, and the new guide confirms that no separate certification is required beyond signing the paper. Individual judges may still set their own part rules.

Is the new guide a binding rule?

No. It is guidance from the court system’s AI advisory committee that explains the existing Part 161 rule and the professional duties that already apply.

What can happen if an AI error reaches a New York court?

Under the model rule, a court may impose sanctions or other remedial action. The guide also points to the existing Rules of Professional Conduct and 22 NYCRR Part 130, which already govern false statements and frivolous arguments.

Does this apply to evidence created with AI?

Part 161 covers briefs, memoranda, affidavits, affirmations, pleadings and similar papers. It expressly excludes materials offered as evidence, which the rule says are subject to separate considerations.

What to Watch

Watch whether more New York judges adopt the model rule in their part rules now that the guide is out, and whether the committee’s upcoming CLE series on AI, bias and equity adds further detail. The bigger question is whether other states follow New York’s no-disclosure model or Pennsylvania’s per-filing certification, since multistate litigators will need one workflow that satisfies both.