If you litigate in New York, you now have AI disclosure obligations that vary by courthouse. SDNY, EDNY, and New York state courts each have different requirements — different triggers, different formats, different consequences for non-compliance. Getting it wrong means sanctions, and the penalties are escalating.
This guide gives you the side-by-side comparison. Bookmark it. The rules are still evolving, and we update this page as new standing orders and opinions are issued.
The Comparison Table
| Requirement | SDNY | EDNY | NY State Courts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure required? | Yes — certification required | Yes — standing order for civil cases | Varies by judge; emerging statewide proposal |
| What triggers it | Any filing where generative AI assisted with drafting or legal research | Any filing where AI tools were used in preparation | Individual justice standing orders; check your assigned judge |
| Format | Certification statement within the filing or separate affidavit | Disclosure statement accompanying the filing | Separate affidavit (where required by Rule 2107 proposal) disclosing AI use and certifying human review |
| Citation verification | Mandatory — attorney must verify every citation against primary sources | Required — all cited authorities must be confirmed to exist | Required where standing order applies; general Rule 11 equivalent applies everywhere |
| Privilege implications | Critical: US v. Heppner (Feb 2026, Judge Rakoff) — consumer AI use waives privilege | Not yet directly addressed; follow SDNY precedent as protective measure | NYC Bar Opinion 2024-5 warns of privilege waiver risk with third-party AI tools |
| Penalty for non-compliance | $5,000+ per attorney (Mata); potential disqualification | Sanctions under court's inherent authority | Sanctions, including appellate sanctions (first NY appellate case Jan 2026) |
SDNY: The Strictest Standard
What You Must Do
- Disclose AI use in any filing where generative AI assisted with drafting or legal research
- Certify that every citation has been verified against Westlaw, Lexis, or the original source
- Use enterprise AI tools only — Heppner established that consumer AI tools (free ChatGPT, consumer Copilot) can waive attorney-client privilege because your prompts and documents pass through third-party servers without BAA protections
- Check individual judge standing orders — over 50 SDNY judges now have AI-specific orders, and requirements vary
Heppner alert (Feb 2026): Judge Rakoff ruled that documents generated using consumer AI tools are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. If your attorneys are using free ChatGPT for case research, the opposing party can argue that privilege has been waived. This is not hypothetical — it is current SDNY precedent.
Key SDNY Cases
- Mata v. Avianca (2023, Judge Castel) — The case that started it all. Two attorneys submitted a brief with six fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT. $5,000 sanctions per attorney, mandatory judicial ethics referral, and the requirement to notify all affected clients.
- Kruse v. Karv International (2024) — At least three non-existent cases submitted in a filing. Firm sanctioned and required to notify all current clients about AI-related filing errors.
- US v. Heppner (Feb 2026, Judge Rakoff) — Privilege waiver for consumer AI use. The broadest ruling yet — affects every attorney who has ever pasted case facts into a consumer AI tool.
EDNY: Disclosure Required, Less Case Law
What You Must Do
- Disclose AI use in all civil filings where AI tools assisted with preparation
- Verify all citations — the standing order explicitly requires confirmation that cited authorities exist and say what you claim they say
- Monitor individual judge orders — EDNY judges are increasingly adopting their own AI-specific requirements
EDNY has fewer published sanctions than SDNY, but the standing order requirements are clear. The practical difference: EDNY has not yet addressed the privilege question that Heppner raised in SDNY, but most practitioners are treating it as persuasive authority across the Eastern District as well.
NY State Courts: A Patchwork That Is Consolidating
What You Must Do
- Check your assigned judge — individual justices are issuing their own standing orders on AI disclosure
- Follow the OCA interim policy (October 2025) — the Office of Court Administration issued guidance that is expected to become a formal rule
- Prepare for Rule 2107 (proposed) — would require a separate affidavit disclosing generative AI use and certifying that a human reviewed and verified all source material
- NY Senate Bill S2698 (pending) — would mandate AI disclosure for all court filings statewide
The trend in NY state courts is clear: what is currently optional or judge-specific is moving toward a statewide mandate. The first NY appellate court sanctions for AI misuse came in January 2026, signaling that appellate divisions are taking enforcement seriously even before formal rules are adopted.
The Practical Checklist
Use this for every filing, regardless of which court you are in:
- Before filing: Did any attorney or staff use generative AI at any stage of research or drafting?
- Citation audit: Has every cited case been verified against Westlaw or Lexis by a licensed attorney? (Not "spot-checked" — every citation.)
- Tool check: Was the AI tool enterprise-grade with BAA/confidentiality protections, or a consumer tool? (If consumer → potential privilege issue per Heppner.)
- Disclosure draft: Prepare the disclosure language required by your specific court's standing order.
- Judge check: Pull up your assigned judge's individual rules. Over 300 federal judges now have AI-specific orders — check yours even if you checked last month.
- Client notice: Does your engagement letter address AI use? If not, add it. Multiple courts have required client notification as part of sanctions.
Sample Disclosure Language
While exact requirements vary by judge, here is a framework that satisfies most current standing orders:
"The undersigned attorney certifies that generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of [specify: legal research / initial draft / citation verification] for this filing. All citations to legal authorities have been independently verified against primary sources by the undersigned attorney. The undersigned takes full responsibility for the contents of this filing, including all legal arguments, factual representations, and cited authorities."
Important: This is a starting framework, not a universal template. Always check your specific judge's standing order for required language. Some judges require disclosure of the specific AI tool used. Others require a separate affidavit rather than an in-filing certification.
What This Means for Your Firm
The compliance surface area is expanding. Six months ago, you needed to worry about one or two judges in SDNY. Today, you need a firm-wide policy that covers:
- Which AI tools are approved (enterprise vs. consumer — this is now a privilege issue, not just a preference)
- Disclosure protocols per court (SDNY, EDNY, and state — each different)
- Citation verification workflow (who checks, how it's documented, what the sign-off looks like)
- Engagement letter language addressing AI use with clients
- Training — every attorney who touches a filing needs to know these rules, not just the partner who signs it
This is exactly what Fractal Legal builds for NY law firms. Not a generic AI policy downloaded from the internet — a compliance program tailored to the courts where you actually practice.
Free AI Compliance Workshop — April 10
90 minutes on exactly these rules, with live case walkthroughs and a take-home compliance checklist. Built for NY litigators.
Register Free