PA (statewide judicial branch): Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, General Ethi…
Judicial Ethics Advisory Board · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Judicial Ethics Advisory Board
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Order date
- December 10, 2025
Status and scope
Applies to the issuing body's own personnel or adjudicators, not to attorney filings, and imposes no obligation on attorneys. It provides: Ethics guidance for judicial officers, not a filing rule: it applies the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges to judges' use of generative AI under the Supreme Court's Interim Policy (ordered September 9, 2025, effective December 8, 2025).
What the instrument requires of its addressees
- Ethics guidance for judicial officers, not a filing rule: it applies the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges to judges' use of generative AI under the Supreme Court's Interim Policy (ordered September 9, 2025, effective December 8, 2025).
- Competence (Rule 2.5): judicial officers must read and familiarize themselves with the Court's policy and understand AI and generative AI; a judicial officer who intends to use generative AI 'must be proficient in the capabilities and limitations of GenAI and be able to use it properly.'
- Supervision (Rule 2.12): judicial officers should ensure that staff have the training to use permitted tools; 'it is incumbent upon Judicial Officers to check the accuracy and veracity of all work product created by GenAI.' There is no disclosure requirement currently, but 'best practices dictate tracking the use of GenAI in chambers.'
- Generative AI 'cannot substitute for a Judicial Officer's discernment' in credibility determinations or decision-making (Rule 1.2), and judges must ensure the propriety of AI use in their courtrooms, including deepfake evidence (Rules 2.2 and 2.6).
Practice areas: judicial branch policy
What the guidance says
The Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board’s General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Dec. 10, 2025) addresses judges and magisterial district judges, not attorneys or litigants. It applies the judicial conduct codes to judicial use of generative AI under the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel.
On competence, the Board treats understanding AI as part of the duty to perform judicial duties competently (Rule 2.5): judicial officers should read the Court’s policy and gain training, and one who intends to use generative AI “must be proficient in the capabilities and limitations of GenAI and be able to use it properly.” On supervision (Rule 2.12), judicial officers should make sure staff know which tools are permitted and what information may be entered, and it is “incumbent upon Judicial Officers to check the accuracy and veracity of all work product created by GenAI.” There is no disclosure requirement for judicial use at present, but the Board says best practice is to track the use of generative AI in chambers.
The guidance states that generative AI cannot replace a judicial officer’s discernment in credibility determinations or decision-making, and it describes judges as gatekeepers who will oversee AI use by attorneys and self-represented parties, including evidentiary questions about deepfakes. It notes the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations’ Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 as a reference for lawyer conduct.
What it means for filers
The guidance imposes no duty on attorneys or litigants. It signals how Pennsylvania judges are expected to approach AI-assisted filings and AI-generated evidence.