Loading page…
The guidance permits AI-assisted drafting without a separate disclosure, but requires independent checks and leaves existing professional duties intact.
Listen to this story
New York’s seven-page guide frames generative AI as a drafting aid, not a source of legal verification: fluent output may contain invented cases, false quotations, or inaccurate law. It translates the court system’s 2026 model rule into practical steps—verify citations and quotations against authoritative research tools, review for bias, and document the checks—while leaving existing professional and sanctions rules intact. Lawyers need not disclose AI use or file an extra certification, but their signatures leave them accountable for every factual and legal assertion.
The Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts developed the guide, and judicial leadership approved its public distribution.
The court system’s model rule, adopted earlier in 2026, requires lawyers to understand generative AI’s limits and independently check output.
Attorneys remain responsible for factual and legal assertions under the Rules of Professional Conduct and 22 NYCRR Part 130.
New York’s Unified Court System has released guidance telling lawyers that AI can help prepare court papers, but cannot take responsibility for their contents. Attorneys must independently verify generated material. They do not have to disclose AI use when filing or submit a separate certification beyond the responsibility conveyed by their signature.
The seven-page publication, The Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Papers: What Every Attorney Should Know, was developed by the Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. Judicial leadership approved its public distribution. Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas appointed the committee to examine AI’s changing role in the judiciary, according to The Daily Record.
The guide starts with how generative AI produces language: it predicts likely word patterns rather than verifying facts. That distinction creates a risk of fabricated cases, inaccurate quotations and misleading statements about the law. A passage can read like legal writing without supplying a reliable legal foundation.
The release comes as courts across the country confront a rise in filings containing AI fabrications, often called hallucinations. Nonexistent citations and incorrect quotations can be difficult to spot without careful review. Such errors pose risks to attorneys and litigants and can undermine the integrity of court proceedings.
AI tools can help enhance efficiency, but they also carry risks that demand caution and informed oversight.
Joseph A. Zayas, New York’s chief administrative judge
The publication builds on a model rule the court system adopted earlier in 2026. That rule requires lawyers using generative AI to understand its capabilities and limitations and independently ensure the accuracy and reliability of generated information. The new guide provides practical advice for carrying out that existing responsibility.
AI use does not change attorneys’ obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct or 22 NYCRR Part 130. The latter governs sanctions for frivolous conduct in New York civil litigation. Attorneys remain responsible for every factual and legal assertion submitted to a court—not just case citations.
The official seven-page guide is available at https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-10/guidance-document-for-attorneys.pdf.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain what disclosure would add—or why the lawyer’s responsibility is enough.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.