AI news ·
New York court system adopts AI rule as fabricated citations persist
Courts are sanctioning lawyers for fake AI case law, recently banning two attorneys for two years. New York mandates strict verification of AI filings by June 2026.
Courts across the country are sanctioning lawyers who submit briefs with fabricated case law generated by AI, and New York judges have now adopted a range of rules to prevent such errors. In one recent federal case, a judge sanctioned all four lawyers involved, canceled the trial, and barred two attorneys from appearing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for two years after both sides filed hallucinated citations.
Generative AI tools have become common in legal practice for drafting, research, and summarization. But the outputs can be dangerously misleading. A law firm submitted a brief with "pervasive inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated…representations of legal authority." Another lawyer was sanctioned after filing hallucinated material and failing to verify it. A third admitted he had included multiple made-up cases and never confirmed whether the authorities existed.
Courts are losing patience
Judges increasingly treat AI hallucinations as a recurring problem that "shows no sign of abating." The message is straightforward: lawyers are responsible for what they file, regardless of how it was generated. Whether a brief is drafted by a junior associate or an AI tool, the obligation remains the same-every citation must be real and accurately represented.
Under Rule 3.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers have always owed a duty of candor to the court, which includes a prohibition on presenting "a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." The frequency of AI-generated errors has prompted courts to address the issue directly. New York courts are now part of that broader regulatory response.
New York courts respond
In the First Judicial Department, a growing number of judges have adopted rules governing AI use in court submissions. While the rules vary, they share a consistent goal: preventing the submission of inaccurate or fabricated legal authority. The approaches fall into three categories.
Strict or prohibitive approaches. Some judges have taken a hardline stance. One court has prohibited the use of AI during virtual conferences and hearings altogether, including for note-taking, and warned that submitting false citations will result in sanctions.
Moderate approaches: disclosure and control. Other judges permit AI use but impose conditions. Attorneys must disclose whether AI was used, identify the specific tool, and specify which portions of a submission were generated by AI. These rules often prohibit AI use during court appearances for recording or photographing and warn that violations may lead to sanctions.
Baseline approaches: certification and verification. The most common approach requires a certification in connection with motion practice. Attorneys must affirm either that no AI was used or that any AI-generated content was reviewed for accuracy and approved. Many rules also require identifying the AI program and the portions of the submission it generated. These rules reinforce a principle that predates AI: lawyers are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their work.
Statewide response
Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System adopted Part 161, a statewide model rule governing the use of AI in court filings. The rule does not prohibit AI use or require its disclosure, but it reinforces attorneys' existing obligations to review and verify AI-assisted work and to ensure that filings contain no fabricated or fictitious authority.
What this means for legal professionals
For practitioners, the takeaway is straightforward: AI can assist in drafting and research, but it cannot replace verification. Attorneys should review the assigned judge's individual rules, independently verify every cited authority and quotation, and consider maintaining a record of that verification if AI was used. Understanding how to use AI tools responsibly is critical, and programs like AI for Legal can help attorneys stay current with best practices. When a filing contains hallucinated law, "Citation Not Found" is not a technical error-it is a professional one.