Pennsylvania court advisory panel proposes mandatory checks of AI-assisted filings

Lawyers and people representing themselves in Pennsylvania courts would have to verify AI-assisted filings and certify compliance under a proposal now open for public comment. The state Supreme Court’s AI advisory committee is seeking feedback through November 24, 2026. The justices would still need to adopt the proposal before it could take effect.

From fabricated citations to a statewide response

The proposal comes against a backdrop of AI errors in legal documents. Spotlight PA reported that filings in at least 13 Pennsylvania court cases in 2025 contained confirmed or implied AI hallucinations—false or fabricated output. The committee’s warning addresses that risk directly: generative AI can invent legal references and quotations or produce misleading accounts of law and facts.

Local courts have already taken different approaches. The committee’s explanatory report describes two counties requiring filers to identify the AI tool used, disclose which portions it prepared and certify that a human checked the output. Two other counties require an affidavit assigning responsibility to the filer regardless of whether AI drafted any part of the document.

Pennsylvania also has an interim AI policy adopted in 2025 for judges and court staff. It permits legal research, initial drafting and editing or readability work. But that policy does not cover lawyers or other people outside government—the population the new proposal would reach.

Four checks before a filing reaches court

Published October 24 in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the proposed notice would apply to all court filers, including attorneys, self-represented litigants and parties. It directs people using generative AI to check the accuracy of material provided to a court or used in a proceeding. The required review goes beyond spotting nonexistent case names:

• Confirm that every cited legal authority the court is asked to consider actually exists.
• Check that quoted material appears in the legal source identified in the filing.
• Ensure summaries of legal principles are reasonably supported by the source’s actual text.
• Verify that factual statements have a basis in the record of the case.

Filers would certify compliance in all documents submitted to a court. They could use a separate certification form or insert the required language into the filing itself. That language covers material drafted by or with AI assistance, including citations, paraphrases, quotations, factual statements and legal analysis. Responsibility would remain with the person submitting the document.

A court or filing office is not required to review any filed document for compliance with this Notice.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court AI advisory committee’s proposed notice

The certification would cover both paper and electronic filings. For PACFile, the court system’s electronic filing service, the committee describes adding the AI certification to an existing mandatory screen for public-access compliance. If adopted, filers could confirm both obligations with a single checkbox. Court administrators would also recommend online certification for local electronic filing systems, rather than requiring every electronic filer to attach another form.

Sanctions, uniform rules and a November deadline

Noncompliance could bring consequences beyond correcting a citation. The proposal allows a court to reprimand a filer, refuse to consider a filing, dismiss a case, order payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, or require corrections. A court could act on a motion or on its own initiative, with or without a hearing. These are possible sanctions, not automatic penalties.

The committee recommends that the statewide protocol replace local rules and forms addressing the same subject. It also recommends requiring courts and filing offices to make the notice and certification available for public inspection in physical locations and on their websites. Those steps would give filers a common requirement rather than separate local instructions.

Comments, suggestions and objections must reach the committee by November 24, 2026. The official notice lists AIAC@pacourts.us as the preferred submission route and says emailed comments need not also be mailed. After the comment period, the committee may revise the proposal or submit it to the Supreme Court’s seven justices, who would decide whether to adopt it.