New York Courts Adopt Part 161 AI Rule: What Lawyers Must Know

On June 1, 2026 the New York State Unified Court System implemented Part 161 of its rule set, a first‑of‑its‑kind framework regulating how attorneys may employ artificial‑intelligence (AI) technology in the preparation of court submissions. The rule, codified under 22 NYCRR § 130‑1.1 and echoing Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, does not ban AI tools but places the responsibility squarely on the attorney to ensure every document filed is accurate and free of “fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.”

Key Provisions of Part 161

• Permitted Use: Lawyers may use AI programs to assist in drafting pleadings, motions, memoranda, affidavits and other paper‑type submissions.
• No Disclosure Required: The rule does not obligate attorneys to inform the court that AI was employed, though it does require a diligent independent review of the output.
• Verification Obligation: Attorneys must personally certify that the content is not “frivolous, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading.” Failure to do so can result in sanctions, fee‑shifting orders, or disciplinary proceedings.
• Judge Discretion: Individual judges may adopt their own part rules that either reinforce, modify, or supersede the statewide standard.

Practical Implications for New York Practitioners

Even though Part 161 does not mandate disclosure, the stakes are high. AI tools are known for “hallucinations”—the generation of plausible‑looking but non‑existent case citations or statutes. To mitigate risk, law firms should implement a multi‑layered review process:

1. Designate an attorney to conduct a thorough fact‑check of every AI‑generated citation.
2. Use reputable AI platforms that offer source tracking and citation verification.
3. Maintain documentation of the verification steps taken, should a challenge arise.
4. Train junior associates on the limits of AI and the importance of independent verification.

These safeguards are especially critical when the AI‑generated material will later be incorporated into depositions or other discovery contexts, where the standard of reliability is even higher.

Potential Consequences of Non‑Compliance

New York courts have signaled a willingness to impose severe penalties for violations. A single false citation can trigger:

• Monetary sanctions and reimbursement of opposing counsel’s costs.
• Fee‑shifting orders under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 8303.
• Referral to the Appellate Division for disciplinary review.

Given the harsh penalties, many firms are treating Part 161 as a catalyst for revisiting overall quality‑control protocols, not merely an AI‑specific rule.

Moving Forward

As AI technology continues to evolve, New York’s Part 161 may serve as a model for other jurisdictions. Attorneys should stay abreast of any supplemental guidance issued by individual courts and be prepared to adapt their workflows accordingly. By combining AI’s efficiency with rigorous human oversight, lawyers can harness the benefits of modern technology while upholding the highest ethical standards.

In short, Part 161 opens the door to AI‑driven legal drafting, but it also demands a heightened duty of care. The rule’s success will ultimately depend on how diligently New York attorneys embrace verification practices and integrate them into their daily practice.