Among the hottest topics in the legal profession is rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in the preparation of legal documents. Several high-profile incidents have been reported where attorneys used artificial intelligence in the preparation of documents but failed to check the accuracy of the documents. These attorneys have learned the hard way that artificial intelligence can, and will, make up fictitious citations to legal authority, which are commonly called “hallucinations.” As may be expected, Judges frown on these inexcusable practice errors.

Several states have adopted practice rules for attorneys regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of court papers. These rules vary significantly. Recently, on March 25, the Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Courts, Hon. Joseph A. Zayas, issued a new practice rule regarding the use of artificial intelligence technology by attorneys in any papers that are submitted to the New York courts.

This new rule is set forth in a new Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator and will be effective June 1, 2026. It includes a statement of policy that states that “the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court.” The policy statement concludes by adding that “since those duties and responsibilities already apply to all submissions, regardless of whether AI tools were used, attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers.”

This policy statement refers to the long-standing Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, which requires that every document that is served on another party or submitted to a court must be signed by an attorney. By signing a document an attorney certifies, to the best of their knowledge, or on “information and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that the document and the contentions therein are not frivolous.

Some individual judges have their own rules of practice for the attorneys and parties who appear before them. The new rule addresses this practice by encouraging individual judges who believe that it is appropriate to adopt their own rule regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of documents submitted to their part of court, adopt the model rule that is included in Part 161. It states that:

“Every attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in preparing any paper submitted to this court is expected to understand that tool’s capabilities and limitations. Attorneys and parties need to be aware that AI tools, among other risks and limitations, can generate fabricated information or fictitious citations to authority (commonly known as hallucinations). Under existing authority, by signing a paper and submitting it to this court, an attorney or party certifies that the paper does not contain any false material, factual statement or any frivolous legal argument and an attorney who submits any paper to this court is additionally bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool in preparing any paper filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before this court is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content. If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.”

The policy adopted in Rule 161 and the model rule should be applauded. Rather than micro-managing attorneys, they recognize the underlying principles of integrity and honesty that are bedrocks of the legal profession. The policy and the rule allow attorneys to adopt modern technology to provide better and more efficient legal services to their clients while relying on age-old values.