New York (statewide, all UCS civil and criminal courts): 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artifi…
Adopted by the Chief Administrator of the Courts (Administrative Order 75) · New York State Unified Court System
Verified April 28, 2026
- Citation
- 22 NYCRR Part 161: Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology
- Order date
- June 1, 2026
Summary
Use of AI tools by attorneys and parties in preparing court papers should not be prohibited as long as use is consistent with existing duties and responsibilities for submissions.
What does the order require?
- Use of AI tools by attorneys and parties in preparing court papers should not be prohibited as long as use is consistent with existing duties and responsibilities for submissions.
- Attorneys and parties should NOT be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers (system-wide policy).
- Individual courts may, in their discretion, adopt the Model Rule (Appendix A) which requires the attorney or party to carefully review the paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material; signing the paper certifies that such review has been conducted.
- Existing certification obligations under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, 130-1.1a, and the New York Rules of Professional Conduct continue to apply unchanged.
- Excludes materials proffered as evidence, which are subject to separate considerations.
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate
What Part 161 does
Part 161 was added to the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations on March 25, 2026 by Administrative Order 75 of the Chief Administrator of the Courts and takes effect June 1, 2026. It applies to all courts of the Unified Court System in both civil and criminal cases. It is the first New York state-court system-wide AI rule binding attorney filings.
Scope coverage and limit. Because Part 161 reaches “all courts of the Unified Court System,” it covers UCS specialty courts directly, including NYC Housing Court (a part of the NYC Civil Court) and NY Surrogate’s Court in every county. Neither has its own separate AI rule. Part 161 does not reach New York executive-branch administrative tribunals. Most notably, the New York Workers’ Compensation Board (governed by 12 NYCRR Part 300, which contains no AI provisions as of 2026-04-28) is outside the UCS and therefore outside Part 161’s scope.
The system-wide policy: no disclosure required
Section 161.3 sets the system-wide policy:
It is the policy of the Unified Court System that the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court. Since those duties and responsibilities already apply to all submissions, regardless of whether AI tools were used, attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers.
This puts New York in the no-mandatory-disclosure camp alongside the Illinois Supreme Court Policy and the New Jersey Notice to the Bar, and against the Florida circuit-level orders, the N.D. Tex. local rule, and most federal chambers orders that require disclosure.
The Model Rule (Appendix A): permissive, not mandatory
Section 161.4 authorizes individual courts to adopt the Model Rule in their discretion. The Model Rule’s operative text:
Every attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in preparing any paper submitted to this court is expected to understand that tool’s capabilities and limitations… any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool… in preparing any paper… filed in or submitted to this court… is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content. If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.
The Model Rule uses signature-as-certification, the same design adopted by Magistrate Judge van Keulen (N.D. Cal.). There is no separate certification block to draft.
Practitioner workflow
For most New York state-court practice as of June 1, 2026: no disclosure block is required, no separate certification is needed, but Rule 130-1.1 and the Rules of Professional Conduct continue to apply with full force to AI-assisted filings. Counsel must verify, but counsel must verify regardless of AI use.
When filing in a court that has adopted the Model Rule, signature is itself a representation that the lawyer has reviewed for fabricated content. Track which individual courts adopt Appendix A; the rule is permissive and adoption will vary.
Status of the Commercial Division Rule 6(e) proposal
The June 11, 2025 proposed Commercial Division Rule 6(e) was effectively absorbed into the broader Part 161 adoption. Treat Part 161 as the canonical New York rule going forward; the standalone Commercial Division proposal is moot.
Primary source
Part 161: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/161.shtml
Administrative Order 75 (signing letter): https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/RULES/chiefadmin/A.O.%2075%20Signed%20Letter%20to%20DOS.pdf