New York: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney New York firm: Two NYC Bar formal opinions, the NYSBA Task Force Report, and binding 22 NYCRR Part 161 (effective 2026-06-01) together establish a detailed standard of care covering vendor vetting, citation verification, supervision, and client consent for AI recording. Part 161 itself sets a system-wide no-disclosure policy and authorizes individual courts to adopt an optional Model Rule (Appendix A) under which signature certifies the absence of fabricated AI content; firms should track which courts they file in and identify which have adopted the Model Rule. Any firm using AI transcription must obtain informed client consent before recording. The biggest exposure is a stricken filing or sanctions referral arising from an unverified AI citation, which creates a direct line to malpractice exposure regardless of any specific disclosure rule.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a court-filing verification protocol that satisfies Part 161, and a vendor due-diligence record for each AI tool that touches client data.

NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5

Citation: New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2024-5 (issued August 7, 2024). Primary source PDF. Landing page.

Status: Formal opinion. Binding ethics guidance on NYC Bar members; persuasive authority for all New York practitioners.

What it requires

• Lawyers must understand how generative AI tools work and their limitations before using them; using AI without that understanding violates the Rule 1.1 competence duty.
• Before inputting client data into any AI tool, attorneys must analyze whether the tool uses inputs for training, whether data is stored or shared with third parties, and what security protections the vendor provides. Failing to vet may constitute unauthorized disclosure under Rules 1.6 and 1.9.
• Firms must assess AI systems for conflict exposure under Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12. Tools trained on prior work product or shared across a firm may inadvertently expose one client’s confidential data to another matter.
• Partners and supervising attorneys are responsible for subordinates’ AI use under Rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3; firm-level AI policies must be established.
• Attorneys must verify all AI-generated citations and legal assertions before filing.
• Submitting hallucinated citations is a Rule 3.3 violation. Frivolous or unsupported AI-generated arguments violate Rule 3.1.
• Attorneys may not charge the same rate for AI-assisted work as for traditional work when AI significantly reduces time involved (Rule 1.5).

What it recommends

• Affirmative client disclosure of AI use is not categorically required provided all other ethical duties are met, but the opinion notes disclosure is advisable as best practice.

Notable gaps

The opinion does not specify which AI tools satisfy the confidentiality vetting standard, does not address agentic AI systems, and its “no mandatory disclosure” position differs from some other state bars and may evolve.

NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6

Citation: New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2025-6 (issued December 22, 2025). Primary source.

Status: Formal opinion. Binding ethics guidance on NYC Bar members; persuasive authority for all New York practitioners.

What it requires

• Attorneys must obtain informed client consent before using any AI tool to record, transcribe, or summarize client conversations. New York is a one-party consent state under wiretapping law, but the ethics rules impose a higher standard; secret recording violates Rule 8.4’s prohibition on deception and the duty of loyalty.
• Per Rule 1.1, attorneys must understand the technical features of any AI recording tool. That includes how transcripts and summaries are generated and stored.
• Treat AI transcription services as third-party vendors receiving confidential information. Per Rule 1.6, attorneys must use reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure, including contractual and technical protections.
• If a transcript or summary will be preserved and relied upon, the attorney must check it for accuracy.
• If an attorney learns a client is recording the call with an AI tool, the attorney should advise the client of associated confidentiality and privilege risks.

What it recommends

• Include a clause in retainer agreements barring clients from recording without advance notice and warning clients about confidentiality and privilege risks of using their own AI recording tools.
• Assess applicable biometric privacy statutes, since some states’ laws cover voiceprints derived from audio files.

Notable gaps

The opinion does not specify which AI recording vendors meet the required confidentiality safeguards. It does not address whether AI-generated meeting summaries in platforms like Microsoft Teams Copilot or Zoom AI automatically require consent disclosure. It offers no guidance on retention or deletion obligations for AI-generated transcripts.

NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence: Report and Recommendations

Citation: NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, Report and Recommendations (April 6, 2024), adopted by the NYSBA House of Delegates. Primary source PDF. Standing committee page.

Status: Task force report with adopted recommendations. Non-binding guidance, not a formal ethics opinion or rule amendment.

What it requires (per the cited rules)

• Attorneys must understand how AI tools work, their limitations, and risks before deploying them (Rule 1.1).
• All AI-generated output must be verified before reliance, especially citations, case law, and factual claims.
• Protect client confidential data; vendor data-handling practices must be vetted before uploading client materials (Rule 1.6).
• Supervision obligations under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 extend to AI use by subordinate attorneys and non-lawyer staff.

What it recommends

• Disclose to clients that AI could be used in their representation, ideally via the engagement letter (sample clause included in the report).
• Adopt written AI policies governing internal use.
• Do not charge clients for time saved by AI efficiencies (Rule 1.5).
• Amend Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 to expressly include AI literacy as a competence duty component. No timeline adopted.

22 NYCRR Part 161

Citation: Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, Part 161 (22 NYCRR Part 161). Adopted 2026-03-25; effective 2026-06-01. Primary source.

Status: Binding court rule. The strongest AI-related obligation on New York attorneys to date.

What it requires

• By signing any paper filed with or submitted to a court, an attorney certifies that the paper does not contain any fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material generated by AI.
• Attorneys who use AI in preparing court submissions must carefully review the paper and independently ensure it contains no AI-generated fabrications before signing.
• Disclosure of AI use is not required under Part 161. The rule requires certification against fabrication, not disclosure of AI use.
• Individual judges retain discretion to adopt part rules requiring AI disclosure, and several already have.
• Violations may result in sanctions.

Notable gaps

The rule does not define “artificial intelligence.” Because no mandatory disclosure exists, courts cannot easily audit compliance. Individual judges’ stricter part rules create a patchwork; firms must check the assigned judge’s rules on every matter.

What federal courts in New York require for AI use in filings

The research note does not document district-wide AI standing orders in any of New York’s four federal districts. Individual judge orders may apply; firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What New York state courts require for AI use in filings

Part 161 governs all state-court filings statewide. Many individual New York state and federal judges have adopted their own part rules going beyond Part 161 on AI use or disclosure. Requirements vary significantly by judge; firms must verify the assigned judge’s rules at case intake.

On 2025-10-10, the New York State Unified Court System also issued an Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (press release), governing UCS judges and nonjudicial employees only. While not directly binding on practicing attorneys, it establishes that NY judges operate under an AI governance framework and are expected to be AI-literate. That heightens expectations for counsel appearing before them. The Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts published an Annual Report in December 2025.

What AI-related rules are pending in New York?

Senate Bill S2698 (2025-2026 Regular Session, introduced January 22, 2025) is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If enacted, it would require any attorney who used generative AI to draft a legal document filed with a court to disclose that use and certify that a human reviewed and verified the content. This goes further than Part 161, which requires no disclosure, creating a conflict that would need to be resolved if S2698 becomes law. A prior version died in committee in 2023-2024.

Separately, a NY Senate bill introduced in early 2026 would create liability for chatbot deployers whose AI systems practice law or offer legal advice to non-lawyers. It is not directly attorney conduct legislation but signals legislative direction.

To expressly include AI literacy, the NYSBA Task Force recommended amending Comment 8 to Rule 1.1; no timeline has been adopted.

CLE requirements

As of April 2026, New York does not have a standalone AI-specific CLE requirement. Per the current rule, attorneys must take 1 credit per biennial reporting cycle in Cybersecurity, Privacy and Data Protection (added 2023). AI topics are increasingly covered by CLE providers as part of this credit, but are not separately mandated. Newly admitted attorneys must complete 32 total CLE credits across two years. At least 1 credit must be in Cybersecurity. See the NYSBA Cybersecurity CLE page.

How do malpractice carriers in New York treat AI use?

No New York bar opinion explicitly addresses malpractice carrier obligations. As of 2026, many carriers require affirmative disclosure of AI tool use as part of renewal underwriting; some impose absolute AI exclusions or AI-specific coverage riders. NYSBA operates a malpractice insurance program through USI Affinity at nysbainsurance.com, which has not published AI-specific underwriting guidance. NY DFS Circular Letter No. 7 (July 11, 2024) issued guidance on AI use in insurance underwriting and pricing; it applies to carriers, not attorneys, but signals regulatory attention to AI in the insurance market.

What does my New York malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

Dominant New York carriers have not published AI-specific application items the research note documents. Four substantive standards apply: NYC Bar Opinion 2024-5, NYC Bar Opinion 2025-6, the NYSBA Task Force recommendations, and Part 161. Documentation should map to vendor vetting (per Op 2024-5), citation verification (Rule 3.3 plus Part 161), supervision under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, and recording consent under Op 2025-6 where applicable. The near-term timing trigger is Part 161’s effective date in mid-2026: any firm filing in New York courts must have a verification protocol in place by then.

What documentation should a New York firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, what categories of client information may or may not be entered into each tool, supervision responsibilities, and violation procedures. Required by implication of NYC Bar Opinion 2024-5 (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) and the NYSBA Task Force.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Court filing verification protocol requiring any AI-assisted submission be reviewed specifically for hallucinated citations, fabricated case names, inaccurate quotations, and fabricated statutes. The 2026-06-01 effective date for Part 161 makes this a hard deadline; Rule 3.3 already requires it.
3. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI part rule log checked at case assignment for each judge’s individual AI disclosure and use requirements, since Part 161 leaves disclosure to individual judges.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence file for each AI tool that receives client data: data retention policy, training data practices, security certifications, and data processing agreement. Directly required by NYC Bar Opinion 2024-5.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI disclosure clause. If the firm uses AI transcription, include recording consent or prohibition language. Sources include the NYSBA Task Force sample clause plus NYC Bar Opinion 2025-6 on transcription consent.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) CLE compliance record documenting that each attorney has completed the 1-credit Cybersecurity, Privacy and Data Protection CLE each biennial cycle.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Recording and transcription consent documentation capturing written client consent before any AI-recorded or AI-transcribed client communication, plus the vendor data-handling agreement. Required by NYC Bar Opinion 2025-6.
2. (Owner: managing partner) AI incident or error log recording identified AI errors and how they were handled. Supports supervision obligations under Rules 5.1 and 5.3.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for updated NYC Bar and NYSBA guidance, S2698 status, new judge part rules, and updated vendor terms.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.