| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| Supreme Court of N.Y.S., Richmond County – Judge Wayne M. Ozzi | 11/21/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Grymes Dev. Co. v. Fodera, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 3543, 2025 LX 552729, the court concluded that the third-party plaintiff’s counsel cited “a non-existent case citation and non-existent quotations . . . as a result of his reliance on [GenAI]” following the third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Although the court acknowledged the potential benefits of GenAI, it held that the error “cannot be considered minimal” because attorneys have ethical duties to not make false statements to the court. The court therefore denied the summary judgment motion with prejudice, ordered the third-party plaintiff’s attorney to pay a $2,000 sanction, and ordered the counsel to reimburse the third-party defendants’ legal fees. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger | 11/11/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Rhee-Karn v. Lask, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222340 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2025), the court clarified its view of the parties’ purported use of GenAI in its denial of the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of denial of sanctions against the plaintiff. In an October 9, 2025 order denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, the court posted a rhetorical question of “Should the Court sanction [defendant] for these misrepresentations and fabrications?”, which the defendant construed as a wrongful accusation of “engag[ing] in misrepresentations, fabrications, and vexatious conduct.” Judge Lehrburger reiterated that this was not any “branding” of the defendant’s errors as “sanctionable conduct,” as both parties were found to have “made mistakes, miscited matters, and asserted unsuccessful arguments that did not warrant imposing sanctions.” As such, the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the October 9 order was terminated. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases – Judge Vernon S. Broderick | 10/29/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Section J of Judge Broderick’s Civil Rules and Practices includes guidance on the use of any GenAI tool in his proceedings. Any party who “utilizes any [GenAI] tool in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that [GenAI] has been used.” Additionally, if GenAI is used “in the drafting of any documents filed with the court,” the party must also include a certification confirming (i) the independent review and verification of the portion(s) drafted by GenAI and (ii) compliance with obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No certification is required if a GenAI tool is used for research. The standing order’s specific requirements for both “preparation” and its additional requirements for “drafting” could indicate that disclosure is required when any GenAI tools are used in any part of the preparatory process except for research.” Judge Broderick’s standing orders also include a link to a sample certification. Parties who do not include this certification may face penalties ranging from sanctions, stricken documents, or “other remedies that the Court deems appropriate.” |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| New York State Unified Court System | 10/10/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | The New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”) published its “Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence” (the “Policy”) that provides guidance for UCS judges and non-judicial employees on the ethical and safe use of AI tools. The Policy first reminded its UCS audience that, despite GenAI’s promising benefits, these tools carry the risk of hallucinations, bias, and leaks of confidential information. For purposes of this policy, confidential information includes personal identifying information, UCS intellectual property, and docketed filings, and may not be uploaded to “any generative AI program that does not operate on a private model.” As of October 2025, Microsoft Azure AI Services, Microsoft 365 CoPilot Chat, Microsoft 365 CoPilot, GitHub CoPilot for Business or Enterprise, and Trados Studio are the UCS-approved private enterprise GenAI tools. Judges and court staff must also ensure that GenAI tools are not used in judicial decision-making out of concerns for bias and the nondelegation of said decision-making. The Policy outlined various “[r]equirements and [r]estrictions” associated with GenAI use, including mandatory training for judges and non-judicial employees on AI, close reviews of GenAI-generated content for accuracy and bias, and limitations on GenAI tools to only UCS-related work. |
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. – Judge Joel M. Cohen | 10/1/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Ader v. Ader, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7848 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 1, 2025), defendants’ counsel included citations in their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff flagged as GenAI hallucinations, as the cited cases were either non-existent, of a different subject matter, or unsupportive of the asserted proposition. In response, the plaintiff moved for sanctions, and defendants’ counsel in turn included a larger number of hallucinated citations in their opposition brief. Although the defendants initially “vehemently den[ied] the use of unvetted AI” and claimed that no proof existed to support the use of any GenAI tool, they ultimately admitted to the court that an unidentified GenAI tool was used to draft the opposition to the motion for summary judgment and that the opposition to the motion for sanctions was viewed “as a minimal matter” and thus not reviewed for accuracy before filing. Judge Cohen reminded the parties of Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from making any “false statement[s] of fact or law to a tribunal.” The court ultimately granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered defendants and their counsel to reimburse the plaintiff for her attorney’s fees and costs associated with the motion for sanctions and the review of the hallucinated citations in the summary judgment opposition. The plaintiff was additionally ordered to send a copy of this order to the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, First Department and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge John P. Cronan | 9/30/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Button v. Doherty, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193976 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025), the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that included statements the magistrate judge did not make and citations to non-existent cases. The court presumed these errors were produced “at least in part, [by] an artificial intelligence tool” and reminded litigants of their obligation to verify the accuracy of all content created by GenAI. Judge Cronan warned plaintiffs that, should GenAI be used in connection with future filings, they must file a “signed certification” confirming that the citations and authority were personally reviewed for accuracy and describing the method(s) of review in accordance with the Court’s Individual Rules. Any filing that failed to do so would be at risk of being struck from the record. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. -- Judge Vernon S. Broderick | 9/25/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Perez v. Evans, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188902 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025), the pro se plaintiff used GenAI to generate argument and citations throughout his objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The pro se plaintiff did cite the fact that he was using ChatGPT to generate his objections seventeen times, but there were still hallucinated citations and quotes. The district court judge, while noting that hallucinations are a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and “a tremendous waste” of the judge’s and parties’ time, declined to impose sanctions in part due to pro se plaintiff’s admission to using ChatGPT. The judge also decided to adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on other grounds. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. N.Y. – Judge Louis A. Scarcella | 9/22/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Stern v. Molina, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2364 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025), the pro se defendant filed a Rule 60(b) motion in a bankruptcy proceeding. Following full briefing on the matter, the court denied the defendant’s motion, and also denied the parties’ respective motions for sanctions. Specifically, the plaintiff moved for sanctions against the defendant on the grounds that he “submitted judicial decisions and other governmental documents that are alleged to have been intentionally altered from the original versions.” The court found that although the defendant had “submitted ‘fake’ cases to the Court,” it “decline[d] to impose monetary sanctions against the Defendant under the circumstances,” but did require the plaintiff to file a sworn statement with every future filing certifying that he has verified the accuracy of each cited legal authority, and “maintain a complete, legible copy of all such legal authority” until the Chapter 7 case and adversary proceedings have closed. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| N.D.N.Y. – Judge Elizabeth C Coombe | 9/17/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Brown v. Fat Dough Incorporated, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182052 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2025), the court evaluated the pro se plaintiff’s motions for summary and judgment and sanctions, denying both on the merits. The court also noted that “Plaintiff could be sanctioned because he included at least one fictitious legal citation in his submissions.” The court emphasized that although it would not impose sanctions at this time, “Plaintiff is cautioned that he faces a substantial risk of sanctions if he continues to use artificial intelligence without carefully verifying all citations,” citing both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and other cases addressing hallucinated citations for this requirement and the prevalence of GenAI-created erroneous citations. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Magistrate Judge Gary Stein | 8/22/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In McEachron-howell v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164816 (S.D.N.Y.), the pro se plaintiff’s “operative memorandum of law include[s] non-existent citations to at least five cases.” While the court stated that “it is no more acceptable for a pro se litigant to provide the Court with fake case citations than it is for a lawyer to do so,” it decided not to purse sanctions, and instead warned the plaintiff that “she may be subject to sanctions should she engage in this practice in the future. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. – Justice Alexander M. Tisch | 8/21/2025 | Generative AI |
Generative AI Usage | In T.B. v. Big Bros. Big Sisters of N.Y.C., 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2025), the plaintiff introduced an excerpt of a ChatGPT transcript during the deposition of the defendant’s representative, where ChatGPT summarized an article about the defendant’s role within the company and alleged arrest for sexual abuse of a minor. Upon seeing this excerpt, the defendant claimed the article was hallucinated, requested that the plaintiff admit this hallucination during discovery, and requested that the plaintiff produce the entire transcript of the ChatGPT conversation. Though the plaintiff admitted they were unable to separately locate this article, the court compelled the plaintiff to produce the entire ChatGPT transcript to help the defendant prepare for the continued deposition of its representative. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| E.D.N.Y. – Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks | 8/7/2025 | Generative AI |
Generative AI Usage | In Hall v. Acad. Charter Sch., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152628 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2025), the plaintiff’s counsel included three hallucinated cases in her opposition to the defendant’s motion to partially dismiss the amended complaint. In response to the order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed, plaintiff’s counsel admitted that the brief was “drafted by a clerk who used Google for legal research” and was never cite-checked by an attorney. Counsel also explained that her husband’s sudden death took a severe toll on her mental and emotional wellbeing and her ability to practice law. Sympathetic to the attorney’s circumstances, Judge Wicks declined to impose any sanctions, especially since he did not find any evidence of bad faith in drafting the brief. Unlike other attorneys, this use of GenAI, “while aberrant, appear[ed] to be an isolated occurrence.” |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences | ||||
| E.D. Cal. – Judge Kirk E. Sherriff | 8/4/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Tellez v. Proiettii, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149572 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2025), the pro se plaintiff included a fictitious citation in her opposition to the court’s findings and recommendations that the action be dismissed without leave to amend. The court declined to impose sanctions but cautioned that “submitting a fictitious case citation and summary to the Court” could result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge Jesse M. Furman | 8/1/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Advani v. App. Term, 2nd Jud. Dep’t, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148504 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2025), the pro se plaintiff’s briefing in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss included various hallucinated citations created by GenAI tools. Judge Furman was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s unrepresented status and thus found sanctions to be inappropriate, especially since the motion to dismiss was granted on the merits. However, the court warned that the plaintiff’s conduct may be sanctionable should she include hallucinated citations in the future. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.Y. Civ. Ct., Queens Cnty. – Judge Kimon C. Thermos | 7/29/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6435 (N.Y. Civ. Ct., Queens Cnty. July 29, 2025), the petitioner’s attorney submitted a 94-page filing where he requested that the court not impose sanctions against him for citing to fictitious authority and acknowledged his use of “West Law [sic] supported by Google Co-Pilot [sic].” As part of his apologies to the court, he disclosed certain health issues and his unawareness that GenAI tools “could fabricate cases.” The attorney further revealed that his computer was hacked, and the as-filed version of the order to show cause contained cases that were “substantially different” from the version he drafted himself. During the hearing on the order to show cause, the attorney admitted that he used a GenAI tool “because he was rushing to respond to Respondent’s motion to dismiss” and did not review neither of the AI-generated cases and the cases cited in the motion to dismiss. However, he did not present the version of the filing he allegedly drafted for the court’s review and did not provide documentation for his purported medical issues. Ultimately, the court imposed a $1,000 penalty on the petitioner’s attorney based on related federal case law and referred the attorney to the State of New York Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh & Thirteenth Judicial Districts, as his wavering positions on the origin of and reasoning behind the citations “escalated his conduct from merely frivolous to egregious misconduct which implicates his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.” |
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| E.D.N.Y. – Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay | 7/29/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s Individual Practices require that any attorney or any pro se party “who has used AI in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used.” The Individual Practices seemingly distinguish between use of “AI” and “generative AI” because, while all parties must disclose “that AI has been used,” parties must “further certify” the accuracy of “any portion of the document drafted by generative AI.” |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Kings Co. Sup. Ct. – Judge Aaron D. Maslow | 7/25/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 2430 (Kings Co. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2025), pro se defendants submitted a motion sequence that “requested that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and impose ‘significant monetary sanctions’ upon Plaintiffs and their counsel for alleged frivolous and abusive conduct in the filing and prosecution of their claims.” In those motions, the defendants submitted so many phony or incorrect citations that, “[f]or the sake of brevity,” the court declined to enumerate each error. While the court acknowledges that “pro se litigants might not be familiar with legal procedures and that a certain latitude may be afforded to them,” it found that the defendants’ “use of AI frustrate[d] the litigation and is not in compliance” with the court rules. As a result, the court dismissed the motions at issue and order the defendants to comply with “IAS Part 2 Rules, Part 2, Subpart B, §15, concerning the use of artificial intelligence programs with respect to any future papers submitted to the Court.” |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. – Judge Nancy M. Bannon | 7/18/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Robinson v. PEARL Delta Funding LLC, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6962 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 18, 2025), the defendant alleged in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff used artificial intelligence to draft certain pleadings and filings. Although the court was unable to confirm the use of any GenAI tool, Judge Bannon noted that using AI in connection with filings is a “sanctionable infraction” and found the plaintiff’s complaint and other filings to be “rambling and often incoherent.” The court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for related coherency reasons but did not address the alleged AI use further. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge Gregory H. Woods | 6/25/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132891 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025), the pro se plaintiff included two hallucinated citations in his motion in limine that “[bore] the emblems of the use of a generative artificial intelligence tool.” Given the plaintiff’s unrepresented status, Judge Woods sought to remind the plaintiff of his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the assertion of non-frivolous arguments and proper legal support. The court ultimately declined to impose sanctions at this point in time but warned that further use of hallucinated citations or quotations by either party could result in sanctions as evidence of bad faith. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge John P. Cronan | 6/8/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Celli v. N.Y.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108775 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2025), the court, in addressing a variety of “frivolous” motions filed by the plaintiff, noted that “an overwhelming majority” of these motions were “transparently authored” by an AI tool. Though he declined to impose any sanctions, Judge Cronan noted that, if the plaintiff were to file additional frivolous motions, he would be required to file a sworn affidavit that no AI tool was used in the document’s creation and would be prohibited from submitting any filing that incorporated AI. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Sup. Ct. N.Y. -- Judge Linda S. Jamieson | 5/23/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Rotonde v. Stewart Title Ins., 233 N.Y.S.3d 537 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025), the court noted that the pro se plaintiff cited cases that “simply do not exist” in his opposition to a motion to dismiss (although the court did not specifically mention “artificial intelligence”). The court cautioned that “‘pro se status does not excuse [plaintiff’s] failure to check the legal citations that he offers to a court,’” and explicitly warned the plaintiff that “he must double-check all citations to ensure that they are valid.” While the court recognized that such conduct is sanctionable, it declined to impose sanctions at this time, but warned that any future submission containing non-existent case citations would result in consideration of sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. -- Judge Peter A. Weinmann | 5/15/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Weinmann’s Individual Rules require parties to disclose any use of GenAI in a filing, which includes naming the program used, identifying which portion of the filing had GenAI material, and certifying that the GenAI-created work product is accurate. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D.N.Y – Judge Rachel P. Kovner | 5/13/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Ramirez v. Humala, 2025 WL 1384161 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2025), the court sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel and the counsel’s law firm $1,000 for citing four non-existent cases in a filing and determined that this conduct violated Rule 11. The court found that the fictitious citations were generated by a paralegal using “AI-based research assistants” and that the counsel failed to verify the existence of the cited authorities before submitting the filing. The court also required counsel to serve a copy of the sanctions order on her client. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| E.D.N.Y. --Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst | 4/25/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78895, the plaintiff included numerous case citations created by ChatOn, a GenAI tool, in her reply brief in support of a motion to remand. In response to the court’s order to show cause, the plaintiff’s attorney submitted the authentic cases cited in her opening brief in support of the motion to remand and an attorney declaration confirming that the ChatOn-created cases were false. The plaintiff’s attorney admitted that, in a rush to submit the reply, she had first instructed her paralegal to draft the reply brief, and then turned to ChatOn to “do a re-write [of her argument] with case citations.” However, she spent “maybe twenty minutes” reviewing ChatOn’s work and did not check the accuracy of the citations. The attorney expressed remorse and informed the court she had voluntarily begun taking AI-related CLE courses. The court ordered the plaintiff’s attorney to pay a $1,000 penalty, acknowledging such a fine was on the lower end because of the “mitigating factors” of the attorney’s remorse, one-time use of GenAI in drafting, and voluntary CLE participation. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| New York County Supreme Court, NY – Judge Hasa A. Kingo | 2/26/2025 |
Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Dewald v. Smith, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 746 (Feb. 26, 2025), Judge Kingo rejected the plaintiff’s use of a “Generative AI tool” to create a transcript of audio and video recordings to serve as evidence submitted in support of his motion for partial summary judgment. Even though the transcripts of the trespass at issue included the plaintiff’s own “Certification of Transcript Accuracy,” the court found that these transcripts contained incomplete accounts of the “interaction between the parties,” were “inadmissible in the form presented” under the CPLR, and failed to “lay the necessary evidentiary foundation.” |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Niagara County Supreme Court - Judge Norris | 2/5/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Norris’ local rules require that any party who uses generative AI to prepare any documents filed with the Court must disclose the specific AI tool used, the portions of the filing drafted by AI, and include a certification that the AI work product was “diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability.” |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Saratoga County Surrogate's Court – Judge Schopf | 1/1/2025 | Any AI | Any AI | The local rules require disclosure of “A.I.-assisted technology” (including generative AI) “in the creation or editing of any document or material submitted as evidence to the court.” The local rules require identification of the type of AI used, the software used (if applicable), and “its role in the preparation of the materials.” It also requires a certification of “final review and approval” of the AI by an attorney, witness, or relevant party. Failure to disclose could result in sanctions, including and up to dismissal. This rule is unique in that it is targeted at “evidence” submitted to the court, and also indicates that the opposing party may request an evidentiary Frye v. United States hearing regarding evidence created or edited by AI. The rule’s particular use of the word “evidence” indicates that disclosure is not required when AI is used to aid in drafting a brief, but the rule emphasizes that litigants remain “ultimately responsible” for the accuracy of “all other A.I.-generated and/ or A.I.-assisted materials,” including legal briefs and affidavits. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Magistrate Judge Gary Stein | 7/26/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 23 Civ. 9043 (AT) (GS), 2024 WL 3812259 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024), the pro se plaintiff included “several nonexistent judicial opinions with false reporter numbers” in her brief. The court found that there was “merit” to defendants’ suggestion that plaintiff relied upon “ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence” to draft her brief. Although the court noted that lawyers engaged in such GenAI misuse “have been subject to sanctions,” it concluded that “sanctions would [not] be appropriate” here because pro se litigants may lack access to legal databases and may not be aware of GenAI’s risk of “generating fake case citations.” The Court warned the plaintiff that “any further filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, such as her submissions being stricken, filing restrictions or monetary penalties being imposed, or the case being dismissed.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge Jennifer L. Rochon | 7/18/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Anonymous v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 1:24-cv-04232 (JLR), 2024 WL 3460049, (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024), the plaintiff cited non-existent cases that the Court “assume[d] . . . are the product of Plaintiff using an artificial-intelligence program.” Although the Court noted that sanctions “may be imposed for submitting false and nonexistent legal authority to the Court,” it declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff out of principles of leniency, and instead warned the plaintiff that “the Court will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Kings County Supreme Court - Judge Maslow | 7/8/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Maslow’s rules require “[a]ll submissions with respect to a motion” to include a certification “that no generative artificial intelligence program was used in the drafting of any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law contained within the submission, or that a generative artificial intelligence program was used but all generated text, including citations, quotations, and legal analysis, was reviewed for accuracy and approved by an attorney (or the self-represented party).” The rules require that filings created using gen AI be accompanied by a disclosure identifying the AI tool used and the portions of the filing drafted using gen AI. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court (Local Rule 9011-1) | 9/30/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1 refers specifically to “generative artificial intelligence services,” and cautions lawyers that GenAI tools “may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.” The rule reminds litigants that they must “review and verify any computer-generated content” to ensure it complies with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. There are no prohibitions, disclosure requirements, or other limitations on the use of GenAI tools. The commentary notes that this rule is based on the local rule adopted by the Eastern District of Texas federal district court. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| US Court of Int’l Trade – Judge Claire R. Kelly | 3/20/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order is limited to filings drafted using generative AI. It requires that such filings be accompanied by a disclosure identifying the AI tool used and the portions of the filing drafted using gen AI. Additionally, the order requires a certification that no confidential information has been disclosed to an unauthorized party through use of gen AI tools. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| S.D.N.Y -- Judge Jesse M. Furman | 3/20/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In United States v. Cohen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48907 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2024), the Court denied a defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised release, in which the defendant cited three non-existent cases, which the defendant himself had “obtained . . . from Google Bard, which he ‘did not realize . . . was a generative text service.’” Although the Court determined it had three potential grounds for sanctions (Rule 11(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1927; and the Court’s inherent power), it declined to impose sanctions as there was no indication of bad faith. The Court stated that these citations were “embarrassing and certainly negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent,” but not sanctionable. However, the Court remarked that “it is surprising that [defendant],” a disbarred attorney, “believed [a Gen AI tool] to be a ‘super-charged search engine’” rather than a Gen AI tool “[g]iven the amount of press and attention” that such tools have received.
|
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| US Court of Int’l Trade – Judge Jane A. Restani | 3/20/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order is limited to filings drafted using generative AI. It requires that such filings be accompanied by a disclosure identifying the AI tool used and the portions of the filing drafted using gen AI. Additionally, the order requires a certification that no confidential information has been disclosed to an unauthorized party through use of gen AI tools. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Erie County Supreme Court Commercia Division – Judge Colaiacovo |
2/1/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The rules require parties to disclose if they “use any [gen AI] resources or material.” Although the order specifies that such disclosure must identify the particular gen AI program used, identify the “portion of the filing drafted” by gen AI, and certify human review for accuracy, the order’s plain language appears to apply broadly to any use of gen AI “resources or material,” not merely when gen AI is used to draft portions of filings. As a result, the order likely applies to the use of gen AI both for drafting filings and conducting research or performing other tasks in connection with the matter. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 2d Cir., U.S. Court of Appeals – Circuit Judges Parker, Nathan, and Merriam | 1/30/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | In Park v. Kim, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a reply brief that contained a hallucinated citation, which she admitted was due to using ChatGPT. The Court stated that “citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel.” The Court referred the attorney to the Court’s Grievance Panel pursuant to Local Rule 46.2 “for further investigation, and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and judgement,” and ordered the attorney to “furnish a copy of this decision to her client” due to her violation of Rule 11, along with a filed certification attesting that she had done so. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| Integrated Domestic Violence Court – Judge Dawson |
1/2/2024 | Any AI | Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | The rules require parties to disclose if they “use any [gen AI] resources or material.” Although the order specifies that such disclosure must identify the particular gen AI program used, identify the “portion of the filing drafted” by gen AI, and certify human review for accuracy, the order’s plain language appears to apply broadly to any use of gen AI “resources or material,” not merely when gen AI is used to draft portions of filings. As a result, the order likely applies to the use of gen AI both for drafting filings and conducting research or performing other tasks in connection with the matter. |
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Chautauqua County Supreme Court – Judge Hanlon |
2/1/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | Judge Hanlon’s courtroom rules require disclosure if gen AI is used to draft any filings, and requires the filer to attest that all citations and language have been verified for accuracy. Gen AI is explicitly defined in the rules as artificial intelligence that is “capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.” This definition seemingly encompasses most mainstream gen AI platforms. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| 7/29/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order does not use the phrase “artificial intelligence” but explicitly refers to generative AI programs by cautioning counsel about the use of “ChatGPT or other such tools,” reminding lawyers of the need to check the accuracy of output. It does not impose any limitations on the use of such tools. | |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| S.D.N.Y. – Judge P. Kevin Castel | 6/22/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Mata v. Avianca, several attorneys and their law firm were sanctioned when they “abandoned their responsibilities” by both submitting “non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes” created by ChatGPT and then “stand[ing] by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.” The court found “subjective bad faith” due to “shifting and contradictory explanations,” including misleading representations by one of the offending attorneys that “he had done other, meaningful research . . . and did not rely exclusive[ly] on an AI chatbot,” when in reality Gen AI “was the only source of his substantive arguments.” The court found violations of both federal Rule 11 (because filing papers “without taking the necessary care in their preparation” constitutes an abuse of the judicial system), and Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (which prohibits lawyers making a “false statement of fact or law”). The court also considered whether the lawyers committed a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 595 (which criminalizes forging a signature or seal of a federal judge or court), concluding that no such crime had occurred, but that creation of fake opinions “raises similar concerns.” The court ultimately sanctioned the attorneys by imposing a $5,000 fine, and ordering that they send copies of the court’s order to both the plaintiff and to all judges who had been falsely identified as the authors of the six fake Gen AI-generated fictitious cases which the attorneys had submitted to the court. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms | ||||
| US Court of Int'l Trade - Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden |
6/8/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | This standing order is limited to filings drafted using generative AI. It requires that such filings be accompanied by a disclosure identifying the AI tool used and the portions of the filing drafted using gen AI. Additionally, the order requires a certification that no confidential information has been disclosed to an unauthorized party through use of gen AI tools. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
New York
Jump to:
