Cite11

New York's courts won't ask if you used AI. They'll ask if you checked.

The takeaway: New York's court system told lawyers they may use AI in court papers without telling the judge, but a human must confirm every citation and quotation, and the prudent lawyer keeps a record of how it was done.

The Big Story

On October 26, the New York State Unified Court System released guidance from its Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: "The Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Papers: What Every Attorney Should Know." It applies to lawyers filing in New York's state courts, one of the largest court systems in the country.

The guidance doesn't ban AI and doesn't require lawyers to disclose it. In its words, it "does not require disclosure of AI use at the time of filing, and it does not require a separate certification beyond the implicit certification that already arises from signing" under the court rules. Signing the paper is the promise.

What it asks for is verification, and it defines the word: "Verification means reading the cited authority to confirm that it exists, that it stands for the proposition asserted, and that any quoted language is accurate." Every case, statute, regulation and quotation produced with AI "must be confirmed by a human" in Westlaw, Lexis, the official reporters or the court's docket. And a line worth taping to the monitor: "Reliance on the AI tool's own assurance that a citation is correct is not verification."

The guidance also recommends a paper trail. Even where no rule requires disclosure, "the prudent practice is to maintain a record of which AI tools were used for which tasks on a given matter, and what verification steps were performed." That record, it says, is what answers a later challenge "from a court, a client, or a disciplinary authority."

One more instruction: check the forum. Individual judges' part rules and standing orders "often impose obligations beyond those of the court in general," and counsel should confirm them before filing.

Not everyone thinks it goes far enough. New York Law School Associate Dean Heidi Brown told amNY that a disclosure and certification step "might add a layer of realization to lawyers," and that a real case cited for something it doesn't say is "more dangerous than just a straight-up hallucination."

What it means in practice, in New York and anywhere a court takes the same approach: the question isn't whether you used AI. It's whether the case exists, whether it says what you say it says, and whether the words inside your quotation marks are the court's words. A check that stops at "the case is real" doesn't meet that standard.

Read the guidance (PDF)

Court Watch

  • N.D. California (Oct. 28, 2026): Farhat v. Cutera, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05674. Defense counsel drafted a motion to dismiss with Legora, a legal AI tool, then checked the cites in Westlaw and fixed them. The uncorrected draft was the one that got filed. No sanction, but the court "will disregard the challenged authorities" and "will not consider the replacement authorities," with a warning that "materially inaccurate citations or quotations" next time may bring Rule 11 sanctions. The lesson: the check has to happen on the PDF you file. Order
  • New York Supreme Court, New York County (Oct. 28, 2026): PC-59 Doe v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Index No. 950693/2021. Counsel's papers misstated a Court of Appeals holding and attributed a quotation to Pelaez v. Seide that isn't in the decision. She admitted using an AI tool without verifying it. $250 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. "Counsel's duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program." Decision
  • Federal Court of Canada (Nov. 3, 2026): Vokshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1346. Apart from three real cases, the applicant's citations pointed to decisions that don't support what they were cited for; the court said this "suggests that they were generated by artificial intelligence" and that being self-represented at filing "does not, however, excuse her non-compliance" with the court's 2024 AI-declaration direction. Judicial review dismissed, no costs. Judgment
  • South Africa, Labour Court (reasons Oct. 23, 2026): SA Post Office SOC Ltd v. Fakude N.O. This time the fake case came from the decision-maker. An arbitration commissioner's ruling rested on a Constitutional Court judgment that doesn't exist. The court found he "must have relied on AI," stopped the arbitration pending review, and said an arbitrator using AI "is compelled to still verify." Judgment
  • Mississippi Court of Appeals (Oct. 21, 2026), as reported by Darkhorse Press: defense briefs in a criminal appeal cited cases that don't exist and quoted real cases for words they don't contain. Both briefs struck; counsel ordered to pay $5,000 to the Attorney General's office and to show cause on contempt. Report

Rules & Guidance

  • New York State courts: attorney guidance on AI in court papers. Released Oct. 26, 2026 (guidance, not a rule; no disclosure required). See the Big Story.
  • Federal Rule 11: Magistrate Judge Patricia Barksdale (M.D. Fla.) has asked the Civil Rules Advisory Committee to add a fifth certification to Rule 11(a): that "the legal authorities exist and are accurately cited," modeled on Florida's rule. Suggestion 26-CV-21 was on the committee's Oct. 21 agenda. Status: suggestion; no action reported. Suggestion (PDF)
  • Tenth Circuit: proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) on AI in filings. The court says final 2027 rules will be posted by November 30, 2026, effective January 1, 2027 if adopted. Status: proposed. Memo (PDF)

By the Numbers

2,266. Court decisions in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of November 5, 2026, up from 2,246 on October 31.

Data: AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin, CC BY 4.0. Analysis: Cite11.

$250. The New York sanction in Doe for a quotation that isn't in the case. Small fine, permanent record.

The Check

Check the file you're filing, not the draft you fixed. In Farhat, counsel caught the bad citations in Westlaw and corrected the draft; the old PDF went out anyway. Before you click file, open the final PDF, go to each citation and each quotation, and confirm them there. If you keep a verification log (New York's guidance recommends it), note which PDF you checked.

One question

Who in your office opens the final PDF and checks the quotes one last time?

Cite11 checks the citations and quotations in a brief against the opinions themselves. cite11.com