Daniel E. Cohen Authors Article "New York Courts AI Rule Part 161 Effective Now; Important to have Responsible AI Governance in Place"
By: Daniel E. Cohen
On June 1, 2026, a new rule on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) took effect in New York Courts. Part 161 of the New York Unified Court System broadly permits attorneys and parties to utilize AI when preparing briefs, affidavits, pleadings, and other documents for submission to a New York court. Notably, the rule does not address utilizing AI to prepare evidence in the case, as those documents are addressed by separate rules and policies.
The new rule points to attorneys’ underlying ethical duties and responsibilities that apply to all court filings, including the duty of candor and prohibitions on making any “false material factual statement” or any “frivolous legal argument,” codified in law, 22 NYCRR Sec. 130-1.1, and Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Local courts and judges are permitted but not required to implement Part 161’s model rule, and they may impose additional rules and restrictions on the use of AI as they deem necessary.
Daniel E. Cohen, a litigation associate and IAPP-Certified AI Governance Professional, notes, "Litigants and attorneys must understand the importance of responsible AI governance, and put in the work to ensure that every case citation is verified and every fact is checked." Daniel, and litigation associate Angela E. Juneau, recently were certified by the IAPP as AI Governance Professionals, and work with clients to shape AI strategies to ensure compliant and responsible AI use.
The model rule requires all attorneys or parties submitting paper to a Court “to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.”
The rule echoes core principles of AI governance: human responsibility and oversight.
Discovery of any fabricated or false materials can lead to sanctions, as Courts across the country have demonstrated by publicly chastising and penalizing irresponsible AI users. As public and private AI tools evolve to write and sound more like humans, litigants and their attorneys must be on the lookout for subtle clues that AI was used to draft a paper. Compliance means properly cite-checking and verifying the authenticity and applicability of legal analysis. Compliance also means checking opposing papers for fabricated cases and frivolous arguments not based in law or fact. Cohen says, "A single fabricated case or fact, followed by an apologetic explanation that AI 'made it up,' can bring upon sanctions, and damage the credibility of a case. It's important to have policies in place to avoid this evolving problem."
