From the Public Safety edition of October 25, 2026
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s AI advisory committee proposes a statewide notice requiring every court filer to verify GenAI output and certify compliance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence (AIAC) · Courts / generative AI in court filings · Pennsylvania, United States
- Publisher
- Pennsylvania Bulletin
- Original publication
- Pennsylvania Bulletin, Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026 (56 Pa.B. 6888; filed Oct. 23)
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-26
- Event date
- 2026-10-24
What happened
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.
Why it matters
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 and measured results
Opened the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice and read the proposed notice, certificate of compliance and the committee’s explanatory report in full.
Limitations and uncertainty
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.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-26; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- 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
- Discovery questions
- 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?
- Value hypothesis
- A documented verification step could reduce sanction exposure and make certification meaningful rather than a checkbox.
- Potential engagement
- Review of one office’s drafting and filing workflow, producing a verification checklist and training aligned to the four confirmations.
- Unsupported claims
- That verification tools guarantee compliance
- That the notice will be adopted unchanged
- Any data on error rates in Pennsylvania filings
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Prosecutor, defender and court self-help operations in Pennsylvania; similar rules exist or are proposed in Florida, New York and Texas.
- Architecture and integration
- 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.
- Proof of value
- 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
Role takeaway
- 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
- Skills and adoption
- Train attorneys and paralegals on what each of the four confirmations requires.
- Governance checkpoints
- Adoption of the final notice
- Office policy sign-off
- Quarterly spot audits of filings
- Acceptance criteria
- 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
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Compliance is implemented as a certification in e-filing (PACFile mandatory screen); AOPC would also recommend online certification in local e-filing systems.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
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.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Limited relevance; the certification is paired with the existing Public Access Policy certification on confidential information.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
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.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Limited relevance; no tools are procured. Court e-filing vendors may need to change certification screens.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Courts and filing offices are expressly not required to review filings for compliance, so enforcement depends on opposing parties and judges noticing errors.
Publication history
- 2026-10-25Public Safety · Issue 475 resources
Stable resource ID: pennsylvania-supreme-court-aiac-proposed-genai-notice-filer-certification-20261024