New York Courts and AI: New Rules for Lawyers in 2026

Artificial intelligence has become a surprisingly common part of legal work. A lawyer might use AI to organize research, prepare a first draft, summarize a long document, or find information faster. But when that work eventually reaches a New York courtroom, the lawyer—not the software—is still responsible for what gets filed. That is especially important under the New York Courts and AI rules in 2026, after the Unified Court System adopted new rules specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence in court papers.

New York added Part 161 to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, effective June 1, 2026. The statewide policy does not ban attorneys or parties from using AI when preparing court papers, but it makes clear that existing responsibilities concerning accuracy, professional conduct, and truthful filings still apply.

Can New York Lawyers Use AI?

Yes.

New York’s courts have specifically said that using AI to prepare papers submitted to court should not be prohibited as long as the attorney or party follows the duties that already apply to court filings.

That is an important distinction.

The rule isn’t saying, “Don’t use AI.”

It is closer to saying, “You can use it, but you are responsible for checking what it produces.”

That means an attorney cannot blame an AI program if a brief contains a made-up case, incorrect statute, or false factual statement.

Lawyers Are Expected to Check AI-Generated Work

This is probably the biggest practical point for attorneys.

AI tools can produce information that sounds completely believable while being wrong. Legal AI can also generate citations to cases that do not exist or describe real cases inaccurately.

Under the model rule included in Part 161, an attorney or party using AI to prepare a court paper is expected to understand the tool’s capabilities and limitations and carefully review the filing independently to make sure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.

So, an attorney who asks AI to draft a 30-page brief still needs to read that brief.

And simply seeing a citation that looks legitimate isn’t enough.

AI Hallucinations Can Become a Legal Problem

The word “hallucination” sounds harmless, but in a legal filing it can create a serious problem.

An AI system might produce:

• A case that never existed
• A real case with the wrong holding
• An incorrect statute
• A quotation that was never said by a judge
• A factual statement unsupported by the evidence
• A legal argument based on incorrect information

New York courts have already shown that this isn’t theoretical.

In a 2026 appellate decision, Matter of Julien v. Arthur, the court held that the unverified use of generative AI to prepare an appellate brief containing false information constituted frivolous conduct that could warrant sanctions—even though the person filing the brief was representing himself.

That sends a pretty clear message: AI-generated legal research needs human verification.

Do Lawyers Have to Tell the Court They Used AI?

Not automatically.

Part 161 establishes a statewide policy that attorneys and parties generally should not be required to disclose their use of AI merely because they used it to prepare a court paper.

That doesn’t mean a lawyer can use AI without responsibility.

Think of it this way: the court isn’t primarily interested in whether a computer helped type the first draft. The bigger concern is whether the final document is accurate and complies with the lawyer’s professional obligations.

Individual courts may also adopt the model rule concerning AI use.

What Counts as a “Court Paper”?

Part 161 defines a “paper” broadly. It includes documents such as briefs, memoranda, affidavits, affirmations, pleadings, and other documents prepared for submission to a court.

However, there is an important distinction involving evidence.

Materials offered as evidence are excluded from the definition of “paper” in Part 161. The rules state that evidence and the use of AI in connection with evidence are subject to separate considerations and requirements.

So, using AI to help organize a legal memorandum is one issue. Submitting an AI-generated photograph, video, audio recording, or other material as evidence raises different questions.

Lawyers Still Have Their Existing Professional Duties

AI has not changed the basic responsibility of an attorney who signs a court filing.

New York’s model rule points back to existing requirements concerning false factual statements and frivolous legal arguments, as well as attorneys’ professional obligations.

This matters because a lawyer might think:

“The AI generated the citation, so I didn’t technically make it up.”

That isn’t a safe assumption.

Once the attorney reviews, signs, and submits the document, responsibility for its contents remains with the attorney.

Could a Lawyer Face Sanctions?

Potentially, yes.

Part 161’s model rule specifically states that failure to satisfy the required review may result in sanctions or other remedial action.

And courts have already imposed consequences in cases involving AI-generated false legal authorities.

In 2026, Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S. discussed the growing risks of AI in legal practice and noted that failing to properly scrutinize AI-generated work can amount to frivolous and sanctionable conduct under New York’s existing rules.

This makes a basic habit extremely important: verify before filing.

AI Does Not Replace Legal Judgment

AI can be useful for repetitive or time-consuming work. It may help a lawyer organize a large discovery file, create a preliminary outline, summarize documents, or generate questions for further research.

But legal judgment is different.

An attorney still needs to determine whether a case actually applies, whether a statute is current, whether a factual statement is supported, and whether an argument is appropriate for the particular client and case.

AI can speed up the process. It does not transfer professional responsibility to a machine.

What Should New York Lawyers Do in 2026?

A practical approach is to build verification into the normal workflow.

Before submitting an AI-assisted document, lawyers should consider:

1. Check every legal citation.
2. Read the cited case instead of relying on the AI summary.
3. Confirm that statutes and regulations are current.
4. Verify quotations against the original source.
5. Check factual statements against the actual case record.
6. Remove unsupported claims.
7. Review confidential information before entering it into an AI system.
8. Make sure the final filing reflects the attorney’s own legal judgment.

The goal isn’t necessarily to eliminate AI from legal practice. It’s to make sure convenience doesn’t replace professional responsibility.

What About Client Confidentiality?

There is another issue lawyers need to think about: confidential client information.

Before putting case information into an outside AI platform, an attorney should understand how that platform handles the information, including storage, access, retention, and possible use of submitted material.

This isn’t just an AI issue. Lawyers already have professional obligations concerning client confidentiality.

AI simply creates a new way in which confidential information could accidentally be exposed.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can New York lawyers use ChatGPT or other AI tools for court filings?

Yes. New York’s statewide policy does not prohibit attorneys or parties from using AI to prepare court papers, provided they comply with their existing legal and professional responsibilities.

2. Do lawyers have to disclose AI use to New York courts?

Not generally just because AI was used to prepare a court paper. Part 161 states that attorneys and parties should not be required to disclose AI use upon submitting such papers.

3. What happens if AI creates a fake case citation?

The attorney remains responsible for verifying the filing. Submitting fabricated or fictitious legal authority can potentially result in sanctions or other consequences. A 2026 New York appellate decision involving an AI-generated brief illustrates the seriousness of the issue.

4. Do the new AI rules cover evidence?

Part 161’s definition of “paper” specifically excludes materials constituting or offered as evidence. AI-related evidentiary issues therefore involve separate considerations and requirements.

Final Thoughts

New York’s approach to AI in the courts is not about banning technology. It is about keeping human responsibility at the center of legal work.

Lawyers can use AI to save time, organize information, and assist with drafting. But before anything reaches a judge, the attorney needs to know what is actually in the document and make sure it is accurate.

The 2026 rules make that expectation clearer, while recent New York cases show that careless AI use can have real consequences.

For attorneys practicing in New York, AI can be a useful tool—but it should remain a tool. The lawyer is still the one signing the paper, standing behind the argument, and answering to the court.