June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

AI Disclosure Requirements

When and how attorneys must disclose AI use in court filings. Court orders, state bar opinions, and the templates that document compliance.

AI disclosure is the most-litigated procedural question of the post-2023 attorney-AI era. Disclosure questions cut across two distinct rules: a court-side rule that applies to every filing in a particular court (standing orders, general orders, local rules) and a client-side rule that runs through the duty of communication under Model Rule 1.4. The two questions are easy to conflate. The court is asking whether the firm’s tool use needs to be disclosed on the record. The client is asking whether the engagement letter or a separate notice covered the use. A firm preparing for malpractice renewal should be able to answer both clearly.

Federal courts have moved fastest. Dozens of federal judges have issued standing orders requiring counsel to certify whether AI was used in preparing a filing, and several federal districts have adopted general orders that bind every filing in the district. State courts have been slower to adopt mandatory disclosure but are moving in the same direction; the auto-aggregated list below pulls every order in the tracker that has been classified as imposing a disclosure requirement, federal or state, against a primary source.

Compliance is mechanical when the firm has a documented program. The court disclosure templates and client AI-use notice in the resources hub produce the certifications a court order requires; the verification log produces the underlying record. Firms that file in any jurisdiction with a disclosure rule should treat the certification language as a pre-flight checklist, not as a one-time filing.

Court orders (73)

Last verified against primary sources: May 6, 2026.