New York’s Part 161: What the State’s New AI Rule Means for Lawyers

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence is changing how attorneys conduct legal research, draft pleadings, prepare correspondence, and manage litigation. In response to these developments, New York adopted Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, governing the use of artificial intelligence in the New York State court system. Effective June 1, 2026, Part 161 establishes a statewide framework for the use of AI in court filings and makes clear that the use of AI does not relieve attorneys of the professional obligations that accompany every submission to a court.

Part 161 applies to all courts of the Unified Court System in both civil and criminal cases. The rule defines artificial intelligence broadly and defines a “paper” to include briefs, memoranda, affidavits, affirmations, pleadings, and other documents prepared for submission to a court. Notably, the definition of “paper” excludes materials offered as evidence, meaning that the use of AI in connection with evidence raises separate considerations from the preparation of court papers. 22 NYCRR §§ 161.1, 161.2. The rule therefore focuses primarily on the attorney’s use of AI as a drafting and litigation-support tool rather than treating AI itself as inherently improper.

Perhaps most significantly, Part 161 does not prohibit attorneys from using AI to prepare court papers and does not impose a general requirement that attorneys disclose their use of AI to the court. Instead, the rule emphasizes that existing obligations continue to apply regardless of whether AI was used. Under the model rule contained in Appendix A, an attorney who uses AI in preparing a paper is expected to understand the tool’s capabilities and limitations and must independently review the resulting submission to ensure that it does not contain fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing and submitting the paper, the attorney certifies that this review has been conducted. 22 NYCRR § 161, Appendix A.

The rule also has implications beyond checking citations. Because Part 161 requires attorneys to understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they use, law firms may increasingly need to consider internal policies governing AI-assisted legal work. Such policies may address approved AI platforms, the treatment of confidential or privileged information, verification procedures for AI-generated research, attorney review requirements, and documentation of AI-assisted work. These considerations may become particularly important in complex commercial litigation, where attorneys routinely handle substantial volumes of confidential business information and where an inaccurate factual or legal assertion can materially affect a client's position.

Part 161 also illustrates an important distinction in New York's approach to artificial intelligence. The rule does not treat AI as inherently incompatible with the practice of law. Instead, it places AI within the existing framework of professional responsibility. The question for judges is now whether the attorney exercised the same professional judgment, diligence, and care that would be expected if AI had not been used. As AI tools become increasingly integrated into legal practice, Part 161 suggests that the attorney's role is shifting from simply producing legal work to critically evaluating and verifying AI-assisted work before it reaches the court.

For New York litigators, the practical lesson is straightforward: AI can assist with legal work, but it cannot assume the lawyer's professional responsibilities. Part 161 permits attorneys to take advantage of emerging technology while reinforcing the longstanding obligation to ensure that every submission to a court is accurate, supported, and professionally responsible. As courts continue to encounter AI-generated filings, the cases applying Part 161 will likely further define the consequences of failing to adequately review AI-assisted work and the standards attorneys should follow when incorporating these tools into litigation practice.