{"resourceId":"new-york-courts-genai-guidance-attorneys-verify-no-disclosure-20261026","versions":[{"version":"external-5023707be5f576459b8c1443bac607d603a606a318a810fd38fb7e3ba63d41f3","resource":{"id":"new-york-courts-genai-guidance-attorneys-verify-no-disclosure-20261026","title":"New York’s court system issues GenAI guidance for attorneys: no duty to disclose AI use, but full responsibility to verify every citation and statement","organization":"New York State Unified Court System (Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence)","sector":"Courts / AI in court filings","geography":"New York, United States","publishedAt":"amNewYork, Oct. 27, 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-27","eventDate":"2026-10-26","sourceName":"amNewYork","sourceLabel":"NYS court system tells attorneys they can use AI in legal filings without disclosing it but have ‘obligation’ to confirm accuracy","sourceUrl":"https://www.amny.com/law/nys-court-system-ai-attorney-guide/","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","knowledge-work","operating-model"],"finding":"amNewYork reports that the New York State court system released guidance on Monday (Oct. 26, 2026), developed by its AI advisory committee, telling attorneys they may use generative AI in court filings without disclosing it to the judge, but must personally confirm that nothing AI produced is fabricated or inaccurate; signing a filing certifies it under the same sanction risk as before. The guidance tells lawyers to independently search for, read and analyze AI-produced citations, explains that models generate plausible text rather than retrieving verified information, and warns of training-data cutoffs and bias. It is the default where a court or judge has no AI policy; a judge’s own standing rule takes precedence. Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas said the system chose not to ban AI or mandate disclosure. New York Law School Associate Dean Heidi Brown called the lack of disclosure concerning and said the focus on hallucinations misses “misgroundings”, where real authorities are mischaracterised. The approach contrasts with Pennsylvania’s proposed statewide filer-certification notice, already archived.","sledRelevance":"A large state court system choosing verification duties over disclosure mandates gives court administrators and bar regulators a clear alternative model to compare with certification-based rules.","evidence":"Opened the amNewYork article and read it in full; Law.com’s Oct. 27 report (partially readable) corroborates a seven-page reference document from court administrators. The primary PDF on webfiles.nycourts.gov returned HTTP 403 to automated retrieval and was not read.","architectureImplications":"No system requirement; verification depends on lawyers’ own citation checking against authoritative databases rather than on court-side detection tooling.","governanceImplications":"Sets a statewide default subordinate to individual judges’ standing orders, creating a patchwork that filers must track; builds on the AI rule adopted earlier in 2026.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Reported text focuses on accuracy and bias; the article does not describe confidentiality provisions, which should be checked in the primary document.","caveats":"Secondary reporting; the primary guidance PDF could not be retrieved, so its exact wording, length and any confidentiality or self-represented-litigant provisions are unverified. Applies to attorneys, not to judges or court staff.","streamIds":["public-safety"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: New York decided not to require disclosure of AI in filings and put the whole burden on the signing attorney. For public defender, prosecutor and county attorney offices, the problem becomes proving their own verification process, not filling in a form. A bounded engagement could map one office’s AI-assisted drafting workflow to the guidance and design a verification checklist. The evidence cannot support claims that verification tools eliminate sanctions risk or that the guidance reduces hallucinations.","engineering":"Engineering framing: the guidance distinguishes generating text from retrieving verified authority, so the technical question is whether drafting tools ground citations in an authoritative database and expose them for checking. Pre-sales should ask how an office would catch misgroundings, where a real case is described wrongly, which citation existence checks miss. A proof of value could compare AI-drafted briefs against a manual cite-check on a sample. The primary document was not retrieved, so confidentiality requirements remain unconfirmed.","delivery":"Delivery framing: the work is building a repeatable verification step into legal drafting: every authority pulled, read and matched to the proposition it supports. The operational owner is the office’s supervising attorney or practice-standards lead. Dependencies include judges’ individual standing orders, which override the default. Acceptance criteria are proposals, such as a documented cite-check on every AI-assisted filing. Risks include verification becoming a box-tick as volume grows, and new staff not recognising AI content."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Public law offices using AI for drafting need a defensible verification process because New York places full responsibility on the signer without a disclosure step.","stakeholders":["Public defender and district attorney office leadership","County attorneys","Supervising attorneys and practice-standards leads","Legal research tool administrators"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which drafting and research tools in your office generate text, and which retrieve authority?","How is each citation verified today, and by whom?","Which judges you appear before have their own AI standing orders?","How would you catch a real case described inaccurately?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: a documented verification workflow could reduce sanctions exposure and supervision burden; the size of any benefit is unmeasured.","potentialEngagement":"A workflow review and cite-check protocol for one office’s AI-assisted filings.","unsupportedClaims":["That any tool removes sanctions risk","That the guidance reduces hallucination rates","That disclosure is never required (individual judges may require it)"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Applies to any New York filer using generative AI, including public law offices.","architectureIntegration":"Drafting tools should surface sources and links to authoritative databases so attorneys can verify each proposition.","prerequisites":["Inventory of AI tools in use","Access to authoritative citators","Tracking of judges’ standing orders"],"constraints":["Statewide default only where no court or judge policy exists","Primary text not retrieved; exact provisions unverified","Attorney filings only"],"security":"Check how drafting tools handle confidential client information; the reported guidance did not describe confidentiality terms.","proofOfValue":["Sample AI-assisted drafts cite-checked manually for existence and accuracy","Measure misgrounding rate, not only fabricated citations","Time the verification step"]},"delivery":{"work":"Embed a documented verification step in every AI-assisted filing and train staff on misgroundings.","dependencies":["Primary guidance text","Judges’ standing orders","Citator access"],"ownership":"Supervising attorney or practice-standards lead in each office","skillsAdoption":"Training for newer attorneys to recognise AI-generated content inside research platforms.","governanceCheckpoints":["Adopt office AI drafting policy","Quarterly sample audit of filings","Review after any court AI order or sanction"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Documented cite-check for 100% of AI-assisted filings (proposed)","Zero filings with unverified authorities in quarterly samples (proposed)"],"risks":["Verification becoming perfunctory under volume","Missing a judge-specific disclosure order","Misgroundings passing citation-existence checks"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-28T02:58:59Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-28T03:05:06Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Brown warned that newer lawyers may not recognise AI-generated content embedded in research platforms, implying a training need.","procurementImplications":"Firms and public law offices choosing AI research tools must budget for verification time; the guidance does not endorse or restrict tools.","operatingModelImplications":"Keeps responsibility on the signer; courts rely on sanctions after the fact rather than disclosure at filing.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.amny.com/law/nys-court-system-ai-attorney-guide/","referenceExcerpt":"attorneys who use AI are expected to understand the tool’s limitations","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}