Does New York require attorneys to disclose use of generative AI in court filings?

There is no statewide rule in New York requiring attorneys to disclose the use of generative AI in court filings as of May 2026. The New York Unified Court System issued an Interim Policy on AI in October 2025 that governs internal court use, but it does not impose any disclosure obligation on attorneys. A statewide bill (Senate Bill S2698) is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Individual judges in state and federal courts have adopted their own standing orders requiring disclosure and certification.

Which New York judges require AI disclosure?

Multiple federal and state judges in New York require attorneys to disclose generative AI use in court filings. In the Southern District of New York, Judges Vernon S. Broderick and John P. Cronan require disclosure and signed certifications. In the Eastern District of New York, Magistrate Judges Arlene R. Lindsay and Lee G. Dunst impose AI-related obligations. In state court, Manhattan Supreme Justice Nancy M. Bannon, Kings County Justice Aaron D. Maslow, and 8th Judicial District Justices Peter A. Weinmann, Grace M. Hanlon, and Michael J. Norris have all issued standing orders or part rules on AI disclosure. The list is growing.

What happens if I do not disclose AI use under a judge's standing order?

Sanctions, struck filings, and referral to grievance authorities. In Mata v. Avianca (SDNY 2023), attorneys were sanctioned $5,000 for submitting fake AI-generated case citations. In Park v. Kim (2d Cir. 2024), counsel was referred to the Court's Grievance Panel after submitting a hallucinated citation. In Benjamin v. Costco (EDNY 2024), counsel paid a $1,000 penalty. Most sanctions cases involve hallucinated authority that an attorney failed to verify before filing, regardless of whether a specific disclosure rule applied.

What do I need to do before filing AI-assisted papers in New York?

First, check the assigned judge's standing orders and part rules for any AI provisions. Second, independently verify every citation and quotation in your filing. Generative AI hallucinations are the single largest source of sanctions in this area. Third, if your judge requires disclosure, include the required certification with your filing. Fourth, even where no disclosure is required, retain documentation of the verification steps you took, in case the issue is raised later.

Does the New York Unified Court System Interim Policy apply to private attorneys?

No. The UCS Interim Policy on AI, issued October 10, 2025, governs the responsible use of AI by judicial and non-judicial UCS personnel only. It does not impose any obligation on private attorneys filing papers in New York courts. Practitioner obligations come from individual judges' standing orders, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (particularly Rule 3.3 on candor to the tribunal), 22 NYCRR Part 130 on frivolous conduct, and Rule 11 in federal court.

AI Disclosure Rules in New York Courts

What out-of-state attorneys need to know about generative AI compliance in New York state and federal courts. The current landscape, the judges with standing orders, the sanctions cases, and what actually has to be in your filing. The Lawyer's Lawyer.

Updated May 2026 · 28 years of New York court experience

The Short Answer

There is no statewide rule in New York requiring attorneys to disclose the use of generative AI in court filings. The New York Unified Court System issued an Interim Policy on AI in October 2025, but it governs only how court personnel use AI internally and imposes no obligation on private attorneys. A bill that would impose a statewide attorney disclosure requirement (Senate Bill S2698) is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What does exist is a growing list of individual judges in New York state and federal courts who have adopted their own standing orders or part rules requiring attorneys to disclose AI use, certify accuracy, and confirm independent verification of every citation. Compliance is judge by judge. Before any filing, you check the assigned judge's rules.

The actual risk is not the disclosure rule. It is the hallucinated citation. Every reported sanctions case in this area involves an AI tool that fabricated a case, statute, or quotation that the attorney did not catch before filing. Verification of every citation, every quotation, and every factual assertion is the controlling duty, whether your judge has a specific AI rule or not.

The Current Landscape in New York

No Statewide Rule (Yet)

As of May 2026, there is no single, statewide rule or local rule in New York requiring disclosure of AI use in court filings by private attorneys. The Commercial Division Advisory Council circulated a proposed Rule 6(e) for comment in 2025 that would have added an AI provision to the Commercial Division Rules (22 NYCRR § 202.70). That proposal has not been adopted.

The UCS Interim Policy on AI

The New York Unified Court System released its first official AI policy, the Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, on October 10, 2025. The Interim Policy establishes guidelines for judicial and non-judicial UCS personnel and addresses how court employees may use AI in their work. It does not impose any obligation on private attorneys filing in New York courts. The Interim Policy is internal, not practitioner-facing.

Pending Legislation

Senate Bill S2698, introduced in the 2025 to 2026 Regular Session, would impose a statewide requirement that any attorney who used generative AI to draft a legal document filed with a New York court disclose that use and certify that a human reviewed and verified the content. As of May 2026, S2698 remains in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If enacted, it would harmonize the current patchwork of individual judge standing orders. Until then, the rules vary judge by judge.

Practitioner Obligations Come From Existing Rules

Even in the absence of a court-specific AI rule, several existing rules apply directly to AI-assisted filings: New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 22 NYCRR Part 130 (frivolous conduct in civil litigation), CPLR 8303-a (costs upon frivolous claims and counterclaims), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in federal court. Every sanctions decision in the AI hallucination cases rests on these long-standing rules, not on any AI-specific rule.

Judges With AI Standing Orders or Part Rules

The following New York federal and state judges have issued standing orders, part rules, or local rules addressing generative AI in court filings. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. New orders are issued regularly. Confirm the current rules of the assigned judge before any filing.

Judge / Court	What the Rule Requires
Judge Vernon S. Broderick S.D.N.Y.	Disclosure of any generative AI use in preparation of filings. If AI was used to draft documents, a certification confirming the attorney reviewed and verified the AI-drafted portions and complied with Rule 11. No certification required for AI used only for research. Model certification on the court's website.
Judge John P. Cronan S.D.N.Y.	Any attorney who signs an AI-assisted filing must attach a signed certification stating whether the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and, if so, describing the verification steps taken. Sanctions and striking the filing are authorized remedies.
Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay E.D.N.Y.	Disclosure of AI use and certification that the attorney has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document the AI drafted, including all citations and legal authority. Tied to Rule 11.
Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst E.D.N.Y.	Counsel cautioned to ensure any AI use complies with professional obligations to the court. Issued $1,000 sanction in Benjamin v. Costco for ChatOn-generated fake citations.
Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1 S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court	References generative AI specifically. Cautions that AI tools may produce inaccurate content. Requires review and verification of computer-generated content to ensure compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. No specific disclosure or certification required.
Justice Nancy M. Bannon N.Y. Sup. Ct., Manhattan	Every motion submission must include a certification either that no generative AI program was used, or that AI was used and an attorney reviewed and approved all generated text including citations, quotations, and legal analysis. If AI was used, the specific program must be identified and the documents (and portions) it drafted must be specified. Violations may result in sanctions.
Justice Aaron D. Maslow Kings Co. Sup. Ct.	Substantially similar to Justice Bannon's rule. Every motion submission must include a certification. If AI was used, the program must be identified and the affected portions specified.
Justice Peter A. Weinmann 8th Judicial District	Disclosure of any AI use in a filing, naming the program, identifying the AI-generated material, and certifying that the AI-created work product is accurate.
Justice Grace M. Hanlon Chautauqua Co. Sup. Ct.	Disclosure required if AI is used to draft any filings. Filer must attest that all citations have been verified for accuracy. Defines generative AI in the rules.
Justice Michael J. Norris Niagara Co. Sup. Ct.	Disclosure of the specific AI tool used, the portions of the filing AI drafted, and certification that AI work product was diligently reviewed by a human for accuracy and applicability.

Justice Alexandra D. Murphy of Westchester County Supreme Court, whose part rules took effect in January 2021, does not have an AI disclosure provision in her published rules as of May 2026. The absence of a rule is not permission. The cases below were sanctioned under existing rules of professional conduct, not under AI-specific rules.

The Sanctions Cases

Every reported sanctions case involving generative AI in New York courts has the same fact pattern: an attorney used an AI tool to draft a brief, the tool fabricated case citations or quotations, the attorney did not independently verify the cited authority before filing, and the court discovered the hallucinations. Sanctions follow.

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

The case that started the national conversation. Plaintiff's counsel submitted ChatGPT-generated case citations to non-existent decisions in opposition to a motion to dismiss. When the court ordered the attorneys to produce the cited opinions, they doubled down on the false authority. Judge P. Kevin Castel imposed a $5,000 sanction on the attorneys and the firm and required notice to the (fictitious) judges falsely identified as authors of the AI-generated decisions. The court found subjective bad faith based on shifting and contradictory explanations and violations of both Rule 11 and NY RPC 3.3(a)(1).

Park v. Kim, Appeal No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. 2024)

The Second Circuit referred counsel to the Court's Grievance Panel for further investigation after counsel filed a reply brief containing a hallucinated citation she admitted was due to AI use. The Court of Appeals stated that "citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel" and ordered counsel to furnish a copy of the decision to her client.

Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2:24-cv-07399 (E.D.N.Y. 2024)

Plaintiff's counsel included numerous fabricated case citations generated by ChatOn in a reply brief. Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst imposed a $1,000 penalty, characterizing the fine as on the lower end because the attorney's remorse, one-time use of AI in drafting, and voluntary CLE participation were mitigating factors.

Hall v. Academy Charter School, 2:24-cv-08630 (E.D.N.Y. 2024)

Plaintiff's counsel included three hallucinated cases in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Counsel admitted the brief was drafted by a clerk who used AI for legal research and was never cite-checked by an attorney. Magistrate Judge Wicks declined to impose sanctions in light of mitigating personal circumstances and the lack of bad faith, but the decision is a public record warning to counsel and clerks alike.

The pattern: sanctions in every case turn on the same thing. Counsel relied on AI output as if it were verified authority and did not independently confirm that the cited cases existed. The disclosure rules are the noise. The verification duty is the signal.

Practical Guidance for Out-of-State Attorneys

For attorneys appearing pro hac vice or seeking admission in a New York court, these are the practical steps that protect against sanctions and grievance referrals regardless of whether the assigned judge has an AI standing order.

Pull the assigned judge's individual rules before any filing. Standing orders and part rules are updated regularly. The rule that was in effect last month may not be the rule in effect today. The 9th Judicial District publishes Westchester Supreme part rules. Each federal judge's individual rules are on the court website.
Independently verify every citation. Pull the case from Westlaw, Lexis, or PACER. Read the headnote and the cited proposition. Confirm the case stands for what your brief says it stands for. This duty exists regardless of whether AI was used.
Verify every quotation against the original source. Generative AI is particularly prone to fabricating block quotations that do not appear in the cited case.
If a disclosure rule applies, include the required certification. Do not improvise. Use the model certification on the judge's website if one is provided. Specify the AI tool used and the portions of the filing it drafted, as the rule requires.
Document your verification steps internally. If a question is later raised, you want a clean record of when each cite was pulled, who pulled it, and what verification was performed.
Address AI use in the engagement letter with your client. Section 5 of the Law Office of Frederic R. Abramson's standard pro hac vice engagement letter authorizes AI-assisted work subject to professional supervision, Rule 11 verification, and 22 NYCRR Part 130 compliance. Client consent is good practice and may become required by NY ethics rules.
Treat AI as draft assistance, not as a research substitute. AI tools accelerate composition. They do not authenticate sources. Every AI output is a draft to be verified, not a finding to be relied on.

Pro Hac Vice in New York With Confidence on AI Rules

212-233-0666. The Law Office of Frederic R. Abramson serves as sponsoring local counsel for out-of-state attorneys in New York Supreme Court and in SDNY and EDNY. We track the AI disclosure rules judge by judge, draft compliant certifications when required, and ensure every cite in every filing is independently verified before it leaves our office. 28 years in these courthouses. The Lawyer's Lawyer.

Call 212-233-0666 Request a Consult

This article is general information, not legal advice. AI disclosure rules vary by judge and are updated frequently. Confirm the current rules of the assigned judge before any filing. Attorney advertising.