PA (statewide judicial branch): Pa. Sup. Ct. Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI b…
Court (per curiam, AI Advisory Committee) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Verified April 30, 2026
- Citation
- Pa. Sup. Ct. Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel
- Order date
- September 9, 2025
Summary
This Policy applies to Personnel using GenAI on UJS Technology Resources. The purpose of this Policy is to promote and ensure the safe and appropriate use of GenAI by Personnel.
What does the order require?
- This Policy applies to Personnel using GenAI on UJS Technology Resources. The purpose of this Policy is to promote and ensure the safe and appropriate use of GenAI by Personnel.
- Personnel may only use or install GenAI tools approved by Leadership on UJS Technology Resources.
- Although use of a GenAI tool may be approved by Leadership, Personnel may be required to seek supervisory approval for the use of a GenAI tool or at a minimum disclose use of a GenAI tool in their work product.
- Personnel must become proficient in the technical capabilities and limitations of GenAI tools before using them and must maintain competence to continue to use them.
- Personnel are responsible for the accuracy of their work and for compliance with this Policy.
- Personnel may share with a secured AI system any case records, administrative records, or information provided that the shared information will be treated in a confidential and privileged manner.
- Personnel shall not share any non-public information with non-secured AI systems.
- Permitted uses of GenAI by Personnel include, but are not limited to: (i) summarizing documents; (ii) preliminary legal research; (iii) drafting initial versions of documents; (iv) editing and assessing readability of public documents; (v) interactive chatbots or similar services to the public and self-represented litigants.
Practice areas: judicial branch policy
What the policy requires
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel on September 9, 2025, with an effective date of December 8, 2025. The policy is the first appellate-court-level governance document of its kind in Pennsylvania.
- Who it covers. “Personnel of the Unified Judicial System” - state-level court employees, judicial officers (including senior status), staff, and county-level court employees under the supervision of a President Judge of a judicial district. Attorneys and litigants are NOT covered; this is internal judicial-branch governance.
- Approved-tools list. Personnel may only use or install GenAI tools approved by court Leadership on UJS Technology Resources.
- Secured vs. non-secured systems. Personnel may share case records and administrative information only with “Secured AI Systems” that do not retain user data, transfer it to third parties, or train on it. Sharing non-public information with non-secured systems is prohibited.
- Competence and accuracy. Personnel must become proficient in GenAI capabilities and limitations and remain responsible for the accuracy of their work.
- Permitted uses. Document summarization; preliminary legal research (only with tools trained on comprehensive, up-to-date legal authorities); drafting initial communications and memoranda; editing public documents; and interactive chatbots for self-represented litigants.
- Disclosure. Even when a tool is approved, Personnel may be required to seek supervisory approval or, at minimum, disclose GenAI use in their work product.
What this means for practitioners even though the policy doesn’t bind them
The policy applies to court personnel, not attorneys appearing before Pennsylvania courts. But the policy signals what Pennsylvania judges will likely expect from practitioners. The Commonwealth Court (in In re Use of Generative AI by Attorneys, December 2025) has already issued a parallel memorandum opinion addressing attorney use, and the Supreme Court’s AI Advisory Committee has flagged future practitioner guidance as a workstream.
In practical terms: assume Pennsylvania judges and their law clerks now know what hallucinations are, what “non-secured” tools mean, and what “preliminary legal research” looks like. Filings that obviously rely on un-verified GenAI output should expect heightened scrutiny.
Practitioner workflow
This policy creates no direct obligations for attorneys. But Pennsylvania practitioners should:
- Track parallel guidance for attorneys (the Commonwealth Court December 2025 memorandum opinion is a leading indicator).
- Verify every citation in any filing prepared with GenAI assistance, since the same hallucination concerns the policy raises about court personnel apply to litigants.
- Expect that opposing counsel and judges will recognize hallucinated citations more readily than they did a year ago.
Scope
All Personnel of the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System. Effective December 8, 2025. The policy is interim and is expected to be revisited as the AI Advisory Committee proposes refinements.
Primary source
Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Sept. 9, 2025, PDF): https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf