New York’s Part 161: What Attorneys Need to Know About the New AI Rule
New York now has a statewide rule governing attorney use of artificial intelligence in court submissions. Part 161, adopted March 25, 2026 and effective June 1, 2026, establishes the policy of the Unified Court System that the use of AI tools by attorneys and parties in preparing court papers should not be prohibited, as long as that use remains consistent with existing professional duties and responsibilities.
For New York litigators who have already incorporated AI into their workflow, the rule does not require you to stop. What it does is codify accountability that already existed under the rules of professional conduct.
What Part 161 Requires
Part 161 does not mandate disclosure of AI use. However, any attorney or party who uses an AI tool in preparing a court submission is required to carefully review that paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.
The concern driving the rule is well-documented: AI tools can generate fictitious citations and fabricated case law — commonly referred to as hallucinations. Under existing authority, by signing a paper and submitting it to court, an attorney or party already certifies that the paper does not contain any false material factual statement or any frivolous legal argument, and an attorney is additionally bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Part 161 does not create new obligations — it clarifies how those existing obligations apply when AI is involved in the drafting process.
The Implicit Certification Under the Model Rule
Part 161 also gives individual courts a mechanism to go further. The rule authorizes individual courts to adopt a model rule set forth in Appendix A, under which a signature certifies that the paper contains no fabricated AI content. That certification is per-court, not statewide.
Importantly, the certification is not express but implicit in the act of signing the paper — no separate disclosure of AI use is required. If you are filing in a court that has adopted Appendix A, your signature on the document is your certification. There is no separate AI disclosure form or checkbox. But the professional consequences of submitting a filing that contains AI-generated fabrications are the same as if you had made a false statement to the court directly.
Practitioners should confirm at the outset of each matter whether the assigned court has adopted the Appendix A model rule.
Sanctions Exposure
New York litigators using AI tools should be aware that even a single AI-generated falsehood in a court filing can expose them to sanctions, fee-shifting, and potential disciplinary action. Courts across the country have already sanctioned attorneys for submitting AI-generated citations that did not exist. New York’s rule makes clear that the same exposure applies here, grounded in the same professional responsibility framework that has always governed court submissions.
The Patchwork Problem
Part 161 sets a statewide floor, but it does not create a uniform landscape. Individual judges retain discretion to implement their own AI-related rules, adopt the model rule set forth in Part 161, or impose no additional requirements through their part rules. Many individual New York state and federal judges have already adopted their own part rules going beyond Part 161 on AI use or disclosure, and requirements vary significantly by judge.
Checking Part 161 alone is not enough. Before any filing, attorneys should confirm whether the assigned judge has issued additional AI-related requirements through their individual part rules — and that review should happen at case intake, not the night before a deadline.
Pending Legislation to Watch
The regulatory picture may tighten further. Senate Bill S2698, pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, would require any attorney who used generative AI to draft a legal document filed with a court to disclose that use and certify that a human reviewed and verified the content. If enacted, that would be a significant departure from Part 161’s current approach — moving from implicit certification by signature to mandatory affirmative disclosure.
Practical Takeaways for NY Litigators
Part 161 reflects where professional responsibility norms are heading nationally. For practitioners using AI tools to draft or research court submissions, a few things warrant attention now.
Verify independently. Every citation, every case reference, every statutory quote needs to be confirmed against the primary source — not just accepted from an AI output.
Check your judge’s part rules. At case intake, confirm whether the assigned court or judge has adopted Appendix A or issued separate AI requirements. Do not assume Part 161 is the only applicable standard.
Monitor S2698. If mandatory disclosure becomes law, firms will need to implement intake procedures to track AI use on a matter-by-matter basis.
The rule permits AI. It does not excuse the consequences of using it carelessly.
Disclaimer
The legal and business issues discussed in this post vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. This post is intended to identify issues that business owners, attorneys, and other practitioners may encounter and to describe how those issues are generally approached — it is not intended to provide legal advice or to prescribe a course of action for any particular situation.
The information contained in this post is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Russo Law LLC or any of its attorneys.
Laws, regulations, and court rules vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. The information in this post reflects the state of the law as of the date of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. You should consult with a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation before taking any action.
Russo Law LLC is a boutique business law firm serving clients under New York and New Jersey law. This post is directed to a general audience and does not constitute solicitation of legal services in any jurisdiction where such solicitation would be improper.