AI Readiness Checklist for New York Law Firms

1. Written AI Use Policy

Firm has a written policy governing AI tool use by all attorneys and staff

Policy identifies which AI tools are approved for client work (and which are not)

Policy distinguishes between "open" consumer AI and enterprise/closed platforms

Policy covers non-lawyer staff (paralegals, legal assistants, IT)

Policy is reviewed and updated at least quarterly

Why it matters: NYC Bar Opinion 2024-5 and NY RPC Rules 5.1/5.3 require firms to establish AI policies and train staff.

2. Client Data Boundaries

Attorneys know which client information can never be entered into AI tools

Firm has reviewed AI vendors' Terms of Use for data handling and training practices

Client engagement letters address AI use and data handling

Firm obtains informed consent before inputting confidential client information into AI systems

Critical: In US v. Heppner (SDNY, Feb. 2026), Judge Rakoff ruled that documents generated using consumer AI tools are not protected by attorney-client privilege. Using consumer AI with client data may waive privilege.

3. Output Verification

All AI-generated citations are independently verified against primary sources

All AI-generated legal analysis is reviewed for accuracy before use

Attorneys understand that AI tools can fabricate cases, holdings, and quotations

Firm has a documented review process for AI-assisted filings

The cautionary tale: In Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023), attorneys were sanctioned $5,000 for submitting six fabricated case citations from ChatGPT.

4. Court Disclosure Requirements

Firm tracks which judges require AI disclosure certifications

Attorneys know their disclosure obligations before filing in each court

Firm has a standard AI disclosure certification ready to use

Court	Judge	Requirement
SDNY	Broderick	Certify AI use + verification steps
SDNY	Cronan	Signed certification detailing accuracy checks
EDNY	Lindsay	Disclose + certify citation accuracy
NY Supreme	Bannon	Identify AI program + portions drafted
NY Supreme	Weinmann	Name program + certify accuracy
NY Supreme (Kings)	Maslow	Identify program + documents generated

5. Billing Transparency

Firm does not bill for time "saved" by AI as if work were done manually

AI-related costs are disclosed to clients

Engagement letters address how AI-assisted work is billed

Flat fee arrangements account for AI efficiency gains

6. Training and Competence

All attorneys have received training on AI capabilities, limitations, and ethical obligations

Training covers practical skills: prompt engineering, output verification, confidentiality

Training is role-specific (litigation vs. transactional vs. corporate)

New hires receive AI training as part of onboarding

Firm maintains records of AI training completed

The standard: NY RPC Rule 1.1, Comment [8] requires lawyers to keep "abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology."

7. Supervision Structure

A partner or designated attorney oversees firm-wide AI compliance

AI use by junior attorneys and non-lawyer staff is supervised

Firm conducts periodic audits of how AI tools are actually being used

Incident response plan exists for AI-related errors

How to Score

25-30: Strong position. Focus on staying current as rules evolve.

15-24: Gaps exist. Address unchecked items before expanding AI use.

Below 15: Significant exposure. Prioritize a written policy and training immediately.

Key References

NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5 (Aug. 2024)
NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6 (Dec. 2025)
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (Jul. 2024)
NYSBA Task Force on AI Report (Apr. 2024)
US v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2026)
Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
NY RPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4