{"resourceId":"pennsylvania-supreme-court-aiac-proposed-genai-notice-filer-certification-20261024","versions":[{"version":"external-21b90f48af0274f76fa4553e382ceb9df81b2c85c520069ef9dee0b3e3538e1b","resource":{"id":"pennsylvania-supreme-court-aiac-proposed-genai-notice-filer-certification-20261024","title":"Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s AI advisory committee proposes a statewide notice requiring every court filer to verify GenAI output and certify compliance","organization":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence (AIAC)","sector":"Courts / generative AI in court filings","geography":"Pennsylvania, United States","publishedAt":"Pennsylvania Bulletin, Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026 (56 Pa.B. 6888; filed Oct. 23)","publicationDate":"2026-10-24","eventDate":"2026-10-24","sourceName":"Pennsylvania Bulletin","sourceLabel":"Pa.B. Doc. No. 26-1549: Proposed Notice Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by All Court Filers and Certification of Compliance","sourceUrl":"https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/secure/pabulletin/data/vol56/56-43/1549.html","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["knowledge-work","governance-procurement","operating-model"],"finding":"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence published for comment (Pennsylvania Bulletin, Oct. 24, 2026) a proposed statewide notice covering all court filers, including attorneys and self-represented litigants, in every Pennsylvania court from magisterial district courts to the Supreme Court. Filers who use GenAI would have to confirm that cited authorities exist, that quotations appear in the cited source, that summaries of law are supported and that stated facts have a basis in the record, and certify compliance in every filing. Courts and filing offices would not be required to check compliance. Listed sanctions include reprimand, disregarding the filing, dismissal, costs and fees, and an order to correct. The committee recommends that the uniform notice supplant local rules (it cites several counties with their own GenAI affidavits or certifications) and that PACFile add the certification to its existing mandatory checkbox screen. Comments are due Nov. 24, 2026; the proposal has not been adopted.","sledRelevance":"A state court system moving from a patchwork of county AI affidavits to one verification-and-certification duty enforced through the e-filing system, putting responsibility on the filer rather than on courts to detect AI errors.","evidence":"Opened the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice and read the proposed notice, certificate of compliance and the committee’s explanatory report in full.","architectureImplications":"Compliance is implemented as a certification in e-filing (PACFile mandatory screen); AOPC would also recommend online certification in local e-filing systems.","governanceImplications":"Shifts from disclosure of AI use (some counties require naming the tool and the AI-drafted portions) to a verification duty regardless of disclosure; sanctions are court-imposed on motion or sua sponte.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Limited relevance; the certification is paired with the existing Public Access Policy certification on confidential information.","caveats":"Proposal only, out for comment until Nov. 24, 2026; it may change or not be adopted. The source gives no data on how many AI-related errors Pennsylvania courts have seen. It does not cover judges’ or court staff use of AI, which an earlier interim policy addresses.","streamIds":["public-safety"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Pennsylvania would make every filer certify that GenAI output was checked, so the buyer problem shifts to proving verification, not banning tools. Prosecutors’ and public defenders’ offices that file daily are the obvious audience. A bounded engagement could be a citation and fact verification workflow review for one office before the rule takes effect. This proposal cannot support claims that verification tools prevent sanctions, and it is not yet adopted.","engineering":"Engineering framing: the control is a certification checkbox in PACFile, not a technical check, so any assurance must come from the filer’s own process. Pre-sales should ask how an office would show which passages were AI-assisted and how citations were confirmed. A proof of value could run a citation-existence and quotation-match check on a sample of past filings and record false positives and misses, since the notice requires human confirmation regardless.","delivery":"Delivery framing: work for a legal office would be a written GenAI verification procedure, staff training and a filing checklist that matches the four required confirmations. The operational owner is the office’s chief counsel or district attorney. Dependencies include the final rule text after Nov. 24 comments and any PACFile changes. Acceptance criteria are proposals: every filing certified, and spot audits finding no unverified citations. Risks include reliance on certification without real checking."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Legal offices filing in Pennsylvania courts will need to show that GenAI-assisted citations, quotations and facts were checked by a person before each filing.","stakeholders":["District attorneys and public defenders","Court administrators (AOPC)","Bar associations","Self-help centres for unrepresented litigants","E-filing system owners"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which staff use GenAI in drafting today, and is that recorded?","How are citations and quotations currently verified before filing?","Would your local rule or affidavit be replaced by the statewide notice?"],"valueHypothesis":"A documented verification step could reduce sanction exposure and make certification meaningful rather than a checkbox.","potentialEngagement":"Review of one office’s drafting and filing workflow, producing a verification checklist and training aligned to the four confirmations.","unsupportedClaims":["That verification tools guarantee compliance","That the notice will be adopted unchanged","Any data on error rates in Pennsylvania filings"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Prosecutor, defender and court self-help operations in Pennsylvania; similar rules exist or are proposed in Florida, New York and Texas.","architectureIntegration":"Certification sits in PACFile and local e-filing; office-side verification would sit in document management and research tools.","prerequisites":["Final rule text","Inventory of GenAI tools in use","Access to authoritative citation databases"],"constraints":["Proposal not adopted; comment period to Nov. 24, 2026","Applies only to Pennsylvania courts","Courts will not check compliance themselves"],"security":"Keep case material out of public GenAI tools; the companion certification on confidential information still applies.","proofOfValue":["Proposed: run automated citation-existence checks on a sample of past filings and measure misses","Proposed: test whether staff can identify AI-drafted passages from drafting records"]},"delivery":{"work":"Write a GenAI verification procedure and filing checklist; train attorneys and support staff; set spot audits.","dependencies":["Final notice text","PACFile certification change","Office IT and records policies"],"ownership":"Chief counsel or district attorney/public defender for the office","skillsAdoption":"Train attorneys and paralegals on what each of the four confirmations requires.","governanceCheckpoints":["Adoption of the final notice","Office policy sign-off","Quarterly spot audits of filings"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: 100% of filings carry the certification","Proposed: spot audits find no unverified citations or quotations"],"risks":["Certification becomes a formality","Uneven treatment of self-represented litigants","Rule text changes after comment"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-26T02:51:21Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-26T02:56:27Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Applies equally to self-represented litigants, who may rely on GenAI more and have less ability to verify citations; the notice must be posted in courthouses and on court websites.","procurementImplications":"Limited relevance; no tools are procured. Court e-filing vendors may need to change certification screens.","operatingModelImplications":"Courts and filing offices are expressly not required to review filings for compliance, so enforcement depends on opposing parties and judges noticing errors.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/secure/pabulletin/data/vol56/56-43/1549.html","referenceExcerpt":"Those who use GenAI remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the documents they file with a court.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}