Regulayer™ / Who requires a record
IN FORCE · INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUIRED
New York adopted Part 161, effective June 1, 2026, and it says the opposite of disclosure: lawyers should not be required to tell the court they used AI. Its model rule, which any court may adopt as a part rule, requires an attorney who uses AI to carefully review the paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious authorities. In every New York court, signing a paper already certifies that it holds no false statement and no frivolous argument (22 NYCRR 130-1.1a). Individual judges may still adopt stricter part rules, so check the part rules of the judge you drew. The proposed Commercial Division Rule 6(e) was never adopted.
the model rule: review the paper and “independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material”
On 26 October 2026 the New York courts’ Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, appointed by Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas, released The Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Papers: What Every Attorney Should Know. It keeps the Part 161 approach: AI use is permitted, careful review is required, and no disclosure or separate certification is required beyond the certification made by signing. Verification, it says, means reading each cited authority in an authoritative source; an AI tool’s own assurance is not verification.
On the record, the guide calls it “the prudent practice”, even where no court rule requires disclosure, to keep a record of which AI tools were used for which tasks on a matter, and what verification steps were performed. Such a record, it says, helps an attorney show that the duty of careful review was met.
Part 161 asks you to have done the work rather than to announce it. The receipt is the evidence that you did, made per filing, at the time.
Regulayer™ makes the record. Software on your own machine that signs, at the moment you finish, which tool you declared, which checks you ran and who reviewed the work. Your client, your insurer or the court checks it in seconds, free, with no access to a word of your file.
See it work, no signupRules change: the authority itself governs, and this page is not legal advice.
When it is challenged
Opposing counsel looks at a sealed record and says: so what. What you say back →, in evidence-law terms, with the certification template.
A signed record of which AI you used and what you checked, sealed to the exact file you deliver, made on your own machine and checkable free by anyone you send it to.
