S.D.N.Y.: Use of Generative AI Rule (Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, S.D.N.Y.)
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Use of Generative AI Rule (Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, S.D.N.Y.)
- Order date
- November 12, 2025
Summary
'Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes a duty on attorneys and pro se litigants to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact and that they have verified all cited sources for accuracy.'
What does the order require?
- 'Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes a duty on attorneys and pro se litigants to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact and that they have verified all cited sources for accuracy.'
- 'Although the use of ChatGPT and other such generative artificial intelligence ("AI") tools is not prohibited, unqualified reliance on such tools may result in filings replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law.'
- 'Failure to exercise due care in reviewing and filing work product created with the assistance of generative AI tools may violate Rule 11 and other applicable standards of practice and expose the filer to sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action.'
- No disclosure of AI use and no AI-specific certification is required.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule provides
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker’s “Use of Generative AI” rule (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2025), dated on her page, restates the Rule 11 duty: attorneys and pro se litigants certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry, that papers are well grounded in fact, and that they have verified all cited sources for accuracy (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)).
It does not prohibit ChatGPT or other generative AI tools, but warns that “unqualified reliance on such tools may result in filings replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law.” Failure to exercise due care in reviewing and filing AI-assisted work product “may violate Rule 11 and other applicable standards of practice and expose the filer to sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action,” citing Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 614 (2d Cir. 2024), where the Second Circuit referred an attorney to its grievance panel for a brief relying on non-existent cases.
The rule requires no disclosure of AI use and names no verification step beyond the Rule 11 duty it restates.
Related rules
Judge Cathy Seibel’s Individual Rules use nearly identical language and add an express duty to verify each proposition, quotation, and citation.
Primary source
Use of Generative AI (Parker, M.J.) (PDF), nysd.uscourts.gov