The surge of AI development has sparked intense debate and has resulted in split public sentiment. On the one hand, many view AI as a transformative piece of technology with the ability to increase efficiency across professional industries, improve accessibility for marginalized groups, and compliment, rather than replace, human ingenuity in technological development. On the other hand, critics have highlighted threats to job security, the potential for reduced critical thinking skills, and the negative environmental impacts stemming from increased data center construction. Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum, the relentless momentum of AI development does not seem to be slowing down, and in recent years, has begun to permeate into the legal profession.
In an effort to confront this rapid development and control AI use in the legal profession, in 2024, the New York Unified Court System (“UCS”) established The Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (“AI Advisory Committee”). In December 2025, the AI Advisory Committee published its Annual Report to the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York. This report uses “extensive research, stakeholder engagement, and collaborative deliberation” to develop findings, recommendations and policy proposals. The report’s focal point is two policy proposals for AI guidelines in the court system: “an internal policy governing the use of AI technology within the UCS and a policy and model rule addressing the use of generative AI by attorneys and parties in preparing papers filed in courts.” Specifically, the report proposes a statewide policy: a new Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. The proposed Part 161 provides that courts may implement part rules governing the use of generative AI, and “encourages courts that deem such a rule to be appropriate to adopt the model rule set forth in an Appendix to the new Part.” The model rule provides that any party submitting papers to the court “is expected to understand that tool’s capabilities and limitations.” The report explains that “[t]he model rule restates the implicit certification requirement of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a,” and parties “[are] 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.”
In June of 2025, the Commercial Division of New York also proposed a new rule to address AI use in the courts. The Commercial Division’s proposed Rule 6(e) bears resemblance to the AI Advisory Committee’s model rule and provides that “…any person who files material with this Court remains responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations in any such submission consistent with Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance. Accordingly, any person who files any such material with this Court is certifying the accuracy and reliability of such material and any statements made therein.” The UCS’s AI Advisory Committee recommended against adopting the Commercial Division’s proposed Rule 6(e), reasoning that AI governance should be uniform throughout the court system.
Despite the above, New York still does not have a statewide rule governing AI use in the court system. However, several judges have begun implementing new part rules regulating AI use. These individual part rules resemble the proposed rules above, and require AI certifications with respect to motions, such as those promulgated by Judge Maslow in Kings County, Judge Kenny in Nassau County, and Judge Pearlman in New York County, to name a few.
The UCS report, the proposed Commercial Division Rule 6(e), and the emergence of individual part rules highlight New York’s commitment to embrace the capabilities of AI yet remain vigilant in the oversight of its integration into New York courts. The proposed policies and model rules seem to focus on transparency rather than deterrence and are trending towards rules that remind parties of their ethical duties within the context of AI. Absent a statewide comprehensive AI policy, it is important for practitioners to stay current with individual part rules, as they continue to proliferate.
Kaitlyn Keane is an Associate in our Litigation Practice Group and can be reached at kkeane@certilmanbalin.com
