AI in New York City Courtrooms: What Litigants Should Know

Quick Summary: Artificial intelligence is already affecting how legal papers are prepared and reviewed in New York City courtrooms. AI can help lawyers organize information and create first drafts, but it cannot replace professional judgment, verified legal research, or careful attention to the facts of a case. Anyone bringing a matter before a New York court should understand that the person signing a filing—not the technology—remains responsible for its accuracy.

For clients navigating a dispute in New York City, the question is no longer whether AI belongs in the legal system. The more practical question is how it can be used responsibly without compromising fairness, confidentiality, or the quality of advocacy. At Glenn F. Hardy PC, that means treating technology as a tool that supports legal work, never as a substitute for an attorney’s independent analysis.

New York Has Established Statewide AI Guidance

New York’s Unified Court System has taken a clear position: the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court papers is not automatically prohibited. Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, effective June 1, 2026, applies across the Unified Court System in civil and criminal matters. It recognizes that attorneys and parties may use AI, provided they continue to meet the same duties that apply to every court submission.

That distinction matters. A brief, affidavit, memorandum, pleading, or other paper submitted to a court must still be accurate, legally supported, and nonfrivolous. The rules do not excuse errors simply because an AI platform generated the language. In fact, the statewide policy specifically warns users that AI can produce fabricated information and fictitious citations—often called “hallucinations.”

The court system has also encouraged individual judges to adopt local rules where appropriate. As a result, parties and lawyers should check the assigned judge’s part rules in addition to following statewide requirements. A New York City case can involve court-specific expectations about disclosure, review, electronic filing, or the use of technology in written submissions.

Why AI Is Not a Substitute for Legal Research

Generative AI can produce polished, confident-sounding text in seconds. That is precisely why it requires caution. The output may appear persuasive even when it misstates a statute, quotes a decision inaccurately, or cites a case that does not exist.

New York courts have already addressed filings containing alleged AI-generated errors. In 2026 decisions, courts examined papers with nonexistent authorities, inaccurate quotations, and arguments unsupported by the cited law. The lesson is straightforward: an attorney cannot simply copy, paste, and file. Every authority must be located, read, and checked against the proposition for which it is offered.

For a client, this is more than a technical concern. A flawed filing can waste time, increase costs, weaken credibility, and potentially expose a party or attorney to sanctions. Strong advocacy depends on applying real law to the actual record of the case—not relying on automated text that has not been independently verified.

What Attorneys Must Still Do

Under New York’s statewide policy, signing and submitting a court paper carries real responsibility. Attorneys remain subject to their professional obligations, including competence, diligence, candor, and the duty not to advance frivolous claims. The same is true when a self-represented party files papers with the court.

Responsible use of AI requires a disciplined workflow. An attorney should identify the legal issue, research controlling authority from reliable sources, verify citations and quotations, protect confidential information, and tailor the final document to the client’s facts and objectives. AI may sometimes assist with administrative or drafting tasks, but it should not be the final decision-maker.

Glenn F. Hardy PC believes that legal technology should enhance careful advocacy, not dilute it. The central work of a lawyer—listening to a client, assessing evidence, exercising judgment, and explaining risk—cannot be automated away.

Confidentiality and Privacy Require Extra Care

Before entering information into any AI system, lawyers must consider what data is being shared and how it may be stored, processed, or used. Court filings may involve sensitive financial records, business information, health details, family matters, communications, or other material that deserves protection.

Even when a tool promises efficiency, a lawyer should not assume it is appropriate for confidential client information. The relevant questions include whether the platform retains inputs, whether the data is used to train a model, what security controls apply, and whether the client has authorized the proposed use. These questions are especially important in high-stakes litigation and matters involving personal or proprietary information.

AI May Also Affect Evidence in the Courtroom

The rules governing AI-created court papers are not the same as the rules governing AI-related evidence. A document, image, video, audio recording, or other digital exhibit may raise separate questions about authenticity, relevance, reliability, and potential manipulation.

Deepfakes and altered media have made verification more important than ever. If a party seeks to introduce electronically generated or enhanced material, the court may need evidence showing where it came from, how it was created, whether it has been altered, and why it is trustworthy. Lawyers must be prepared to challenge questionable material and to establish a proper foundation for reliable evidence.

Practical Steps for New York City Litigants

If you are involved in a New York City case, keep these practical points in mind:

• Do not rely on AI as your only source of legal advice. A chatbot cannot evaluate your complete record, procedural posture, deadlines, or litigation strategy.
• Verify every legal citation. Do not submit a case, statute, quotation, or factual statement unless it has been independently checked.
• Protect sensitive information. Be cautious about uploading pleadings, discovery, medical information, or private communications into public or consumer-facing AI tools.
• Review court and judge-specific rules. Requirements can differ depending on the court, part, and type of matter.
• Ask direct questions about technology. Clients should feel comfortable asking how legal technology is being used and how confidentiality is protected.

At Glenn F. Hardy PC, clients should expect clear communication about the work being done on their behalf. Useful technology can improve efficiency, but the legal advice and advocacy must remain thoughtful, fact-driven, and accountable.

FAQ

Can lawyers use AI to prepare papers for New York City courts?

Yes. New York’s statewide rules permit attorneys and parties to use AI in preparing court papers, as long as they comply with their continuing legal and ethical obligations.

Must a lawyer disclose AI use in every New York court filing?

Not under the general statewide policy. However, an individual court or judge may adopt a rule requiring disclosure or an affirmation, so local part rules should always be reviewed.

What happens if an AI tool invents a case citation?

The person who files the paper may face consequences. A court can reject the submission, require correction, impose sanctions, or take other remedial action where appropriate.

Can I use an AI chatbot to represent myself in court?

AI may help you understand general concepts, but it is not a lawyer and is not legal authority. It cannot replace verified research, compliance with procedural rules, or individualized legal advice.

Does AI change the importance of having an attorney?

It makes experienced legal judgment more important, not less. As technology creates new opportunities and new risks, clients benefit from counsel who can verify the law, protect confidential information, and build a strategy around the facts that matter.

For help assessing the legal issues in a New York City matter, contact Glenn F. Hardy PC to discuss your situation with a lawyer who can provide advice grounded in verified law and the specific facts of your case.