TL;DR: New York’s 22 NYCRR Part 161, Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology, took effect June 1, 2026. It authorizes the use of AI tools to prepare court papers, but signals a shift toward accountability if courts adopt Appendix A’s Model Rule, which requires a practitioner to certify that AI-assisted drafting has been reviewed and that the submission contains no fabricated or fictitious content. Importantly, Part 161 focuses on the preparation of papers, not the admission of evidence, which remains governed by separate evidentiary rules. For trial teams, the development creates an immediate need for internal GenAI governance, disciplined vetting of AI output, and a readiness plan for possible sanctions if AI-generated content is found to be false or misleading. The language also clarifies that there is no automatic requirement to disclose AI usage to the court, though that stance could be replaced at the local level if a court adopts Appendix A. These changes underscore the rising influence of AI in litigation practice and the necessity of robust review processes before filing anything AI-assisted.
Overview of Part 161 and its genesis
On March 25, 2026, the Administrative Judge issued Administrative Order AO/75/2026 adding Part 161 to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, effective June 1, 2026. The rule confirms that the policy applies to all courts in the Unified Court System, in both civil and criminal cases. It defines AI, clarifies what constitutes a “paper” (pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, and similar documents) prepared for submission to a court, and distinguishes this from materials offered as evidence, which remain governed by separate evidentiary considerations. Crucially, the order emphasizes that the use of AI in preparing court papers should not be prohibited so long as it complies with existing duties and responsibilities. (nycourts.gov)
In tandem with Part 161, Appendix A to the rule—titled Model Rule Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Preparing Court Papers—makes explicit that AI tools can generate fabricated information or fictitious citations. It further requires that any attorney or party who uses AI in preparing a court paper must carefully review the output and independently verify that the document does not contain fabricated content. By signing the paper submitted to the court, the attorney certifies that such review has occurred. This certification standard is not automatic in every court district; adoption of the model rule would be at the court’s discretion. (nycourts.gov)
The formal adoption of Part 161 and Appendix A appears in the Administrative Order and in the NY Courts’ rule pages, making June 1, 2026 the pivotal date for practitioners to reassess AI use in filings. The order also notes that if a court implements a local rule adopting the model, the certification obligation will govern filings in that court. (nycourts.gov)
What this means for trial teams practicing in New York
AI usage in drafting court papers is permitted, but not mandatory to disclose. The policy language states that attorneys should not be required to disclose AI usage merely because AI tools were used, as long as duties and responsibilities in filing are respected. This preserves flexibility for counsel while highlighting the overarching accountability framework. (nycourts.gov)
The potential to require certification affects every filing that is covered by Part 161 if a given court adopts Appendix A. Under the model rule, any AI-assisted paper must reflect that the author has reviewed and verified the AI-generated content for accuracy, including ensuring that the output does not contain fabricated cases or citations. The certification requirement is explicit in the Administrative Order’s Appendix A and will become binding if a court adopts the model rule. (nycourts.gov)
The rule’s scope is limited to “papers” prepared for submission; evidence itself remains governed by other rules of evidence. This means Urgently address how AI is used in drafting pleadings, motions, and summaries, while continuing to validate all evidence with traditional standards for admissibility and reliability. (nycourts.gov)
A strong emphasis on vetting cannot be understated. The Appendix A language warns about hallucinations and fabricated authorities, and the model-rule certification makes it essential that attorneys personally verify AI outputs before signing. Even where not yet adopted statewide, this signal will affect discovery and motion practice in many courts as a best-practice expectation. (nycourts.gov)
Public-comment material and advisory materials reflect a broader federal and state trend toward AI governance in litigation, including the recognition that AI-generated outputs can undermine credibility if not properly vetted. Firms should monitor local implementations and stay aligned with any new best-practices or sanctions guidance that surfaces from NY courts or ethics opinions. (uscourts.gov)
Practical steps to implement Part 161 readiness in your firm
Develop a GenAI governance policy for NY filings. Create a clear process for selecting AI tools, vetting outputs, and documenting provenance of AI-generated text and citations. Include a “cite-check” step analogous to traditional manual verification. This policy should map to 22 NYCRR Part 161’s definitions and the cautionary language in Appendix A regarding hallucinations. (nycourts.gov)
Establish a formal review and certification workflow. If the local court adopts the Model Rule, prepare to implement a signing protocol that confirms the paper has been reviewed for accuracy and does not contain fabricated content. Consider updating internal signing procedures for filings to reflect this certification obligation. (nycourts.gov)
Train attorneys and staff on risk awareness around AI. Use internal training that emphasizes the risk of fabricated authorities, and integrate practical exercises for identifying and correcting hallucinations in AI drafts. The Appendix A language specifically calls out the risk of fabricated content, making proactive training essential. (nycourts.gov)
Implement robust citation verification. Beyond AI vetting, ensure that any AI-suggested citations are independently verified against authoritative sources. This remains critical regardless of whether a local court adopts the model rule. (nycourts.gov)
Plan for evolving requirements. NY courts may broaden or tailor Part 161’s model rule to civil and criminal contexts, and ethics opinions may address disclosure norms and vendor vetting. Stay attuned to updates on nycourts.gov and related practitioner alerts. (uscourts.gov)
Leverage training resources to improve trial readiness. As an ongoing practice improvement measure, tools and programs that emphasize objection handling, evidentiary foundations, and live-court simulation can help lawyers adapt to AI-enabled submissions and potential challenges during hearings. In the evergreen sense, Objection Academy remains a practical resource for objection drills and trial-readiness practice, especially when confronting AI-generated content in the courtroom. (Practical tip: integrate objection-sharpening exercises into your NY‑specific AI workflows.)
Next steps for litigators with NY matters
If your team files in New York after June 1, 2026, prepare for the possibility of per-filing certification requirements where the local court adopts Appendix A. Build internal controls that verify AI outputs and ensure any AI-assisted content is solidly connected to credible sources. The Administrative Order and Part 161 text confirm the coming change in duty and accountability for AI-assisted court papers. (nycourts.gov)
Monitor local court rules and ethics opinions for specifics on whether and how the Model Rule is adopted in particular counties or departments. The NY Courts’ rules page and public-comment materials provide the relevant roadmap for updates as courts implement Part 161 locally. (nycourts.gov)
Prepare your team for potential sanctions or professional-responsibility questions if AI-generated content is later shown to be fabricated or misleading. The rule’s emphasis on independent verification and certification positions credibility and accuracy as central office within the filing process. (nycourts.gov)
Sources
- Part 161. Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology, New York Courts. 22 NYCRR; effective June 1, 2026. (nycourts.gov)
- Administrative Order AO/75/2026, Chief Administrative Judge, Use of AI Technology Part 161; effective June 1, 2026; Appendix A Model Rule. (nycourts.gov)
- Rules Amendments: 22 NYCRR Part 161 and related amendments, New York Courts. (nycourts.gov)
- Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, May 17, 2026; related materials on AI and evidence rules. (uscourts.gov)