N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Niagara Cnty.): Hon. Michael J. Norris Court Rules (Artificial Intelligenc…
Hon. Michael J. Norris, J.S.C. · Niagara County Supreme Court, Part 3
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Hon. Michael J. Norris Court Rules (Artificial Intelligence)
- Order date
- June 5, 2026
Summary
Current rule ('As of 6.5.2026'): any attorney or party who uses an AI tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper filed in or submitted to the court or served on another party 'is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.'
What does the order require?
- Current rule ('As of 6.5.2026'): any attorney or party who uses an AI tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper filed in or submitted to the court or served on another party '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.' No separate AI disclosure or certificate is required.
- 'If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.'
- Separate prohibition: 'The Court does not permit any recording or transcription of conferences or proceedings conducted by phone or on Microsoft Teams, by any means, including, but not limited to, Artificial Intelligence software or tools.'
- Earlier rule (version 'Revised 5.12.25'): a party using a generative AI tool had to (1) disclose the use of AI, (2) disclose the specific tool, (3) identify the portion drafted by AI, and (4) certify human review for accuracy and applicability. The 2026 text replaced it.
Practice areas: state civil
What the rule requires now
Justice Norris’s Part 3 rules in Niagara County, in the version dated “As of 6.5.2026,” adopt the Model Rule from Appendix A of 22 NYCRR Part 161, the New York courts’ AI rule. The rule opens with an expectation that “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,” and then sets the operative duty:
“any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(b), filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before 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 signature is the certification. No AI disclosure, tool identification, or separate certificate is required, and the duty reaches papers served on another party as well as those filed.
The rules also prohibit “any recording or transcription of conferences or proceedings conducted by phone or on Microsoft Teams, by any means, including, but not limited to, Artificial Intelligence software or tools.”
What it replaced
The earlier version of the part rules, marked “Revised 5.12.25,” took the disclosure approach: “Any party who uses generative AI tool in preparation of any documents filed with the court must: (1) disclose the use of AI; (2) disclose the specific AI tool used; (3) identifies the portion of the filing drafted by AI; and (4) include a certification that the AI work product was diligently reviewed by a human being for accuracy and applicability.” Filings made under that version were subject to those four requirements.
Companion authority
22 NYCRR Part 161 sets the statewide position (no mandatory disclosure) and authorizes individual courts to adopt the Model Rule this part now uses.
Primary sources
How this order changed
Dated record of this order's own lifecycle. Where it was amended or withdrawn, the badge shows its standing after that step.
- activePart rules 'Revised 5.12.25' carry a four-part generative AI rule: disclose AI use, name the tool, identify the AI-drafted portion, and certify human review. source
- amendedPart rules 'As of 6.5.2026' replace the disclosure rule with the text of the 22 NYCRR Part 161 Appendix A Model Rule: review for fabricated authority, with the signature as the certification.