Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”) adopted Part 161, a new rule governing the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology in court filings. The rule expressly permits attorneys and litigants to use AI tools when preparing documents submitted to New York courts while reinforcing attorneys’ ethical and professional obligations to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content before filing.
The adoption of Part 161 follows the UCS’s initial AI guidance issued in October 2025. We previously discussed that policy in our article, “New York State Unified Court System Issues First AI Use Policy for Judges and Court Staff.”
Can Attorneys Use AI in New York Court Filings?
Yes. One of the most significant aspects of Part 161 is that it expressly permits attorneys and litigants to use AI tools when preparing documents submitted to the court.
The rule recognizes that AI can be a valuable tool for legal research, document drafting, and other legal services. Rather than restricting the use of generative AI technology, the UCS has focused on accountability, accuracy, and attorney oversight. Attorneys may incorporate AI into their legal practice provided they continue to comply with all applicable professional, ethical, and legal obligations.
Does New York Require Disclosure of AI Use in Court Filings?
No. Unlike some jurisdictions that have considered mandatory disclosure requirements, Part 161 does not require attorneys or litigants to disclose that AI was used in preparing a court filing.
The UCS determined that existing rules, including the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, already require attorneys to ensure that court filings are truthful and accurate. However, individual judges retain discretion to implement their own rules governing AI use in proceedings before their courts.
Importance of Attorney Verification
Part 161 includes a model rule (“Model Rule”) that courts may adopt if additional regulation is deemed necessary. The Model Rule emphasizes that attorneys using AI technology must understand both the capabilities and limitations of the technology and independently verify the accuracy of any AI-assisted work product before filing it with the court.
This requirement is particularly important because generative AI platforms have been known to produce fabricated legal authorities, fictitious case citations, inaccurate quotations, and false factual assertions—commonly referred to as “AI hallucinations.” Courts across the country have sanctioned attorneys who relied on AI-generated content without independently confirming its accuracy.
By signing a court filing, attorneys remain responsible for ensuring that submitted documents do not contain fabricated or fictitious content.
Why This Matters
Part 161 reflects the UCS’s effort to balance technological innovation with professional accountability. While AI tools may improve efficiency and reduce the time required to perform certain legal tasks, attorneys remain fully responsible for the quality and accuracy of the work submitted on behalf of their clients.
As courts continue to develop rules governing AI in legal practice, businesses and individuals should work with counsel who understand both the opportunities and risks associated with these rapidly evolving technologies.
For more information regarding Part 161, visit the New York State Unified Court System’s official rule page or the New York State Bar Association’s discussion of the rule.
About Us
Newman & Lickstein, LLP has served as trusted legal counsel in Central New York for more than fifty years. Our firm advises clients in business, corporate, commercial real estate, litigation, and emerging technology matters, including AI regulation and its impact on legal practice. We closely monitor developments in AI policy and litigation trends to help clients navigate risk and compliance in a rapidly evolving environment.
