A committee advising the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is considering a rule that would require lawyers and other court filers to certify they have verified the accuracy of any AI-generated citations and information in legal documents, with potential sanctions including reprimands, fines, or case dismissal for noncompliance.
The proposed notice, published last month in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, comes from the Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence, which said it wants to make all court filers aware that generative AI can produce “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated information,” such as erroneous legal citations or quotations.
Filers, including lawyers and people representing themselves, would need to “thoroughly review” the accuracy of any AI-generated content in court documents before submitting them and certify compliance. That includes checking summaries of legal principles as well as all legal citations and quotes. The proposal would effectively place the accuracy burden on humans, rather than technology.
The public and other interested parties have until Nov. 24 to comment or weigh in with concerns or suggested changes. After that, the AI advisory committee can tweak or formally submit its proposal to the high court’s seven justices, who will then vote on whether to adopt it.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association, which advocates for lawyers and the legal profession, has not yet taken a position on the proposal, according to a spokesperson. But in 2024, the statewide association and the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a joint formal opinion with guidance and best practices for using AI. Among them: Lawyers should verify the accuracy of all AI-generated content.
It is not the first time the high court has waded into the debate over the appropriate use of AI. In 2024, justices established an advisory committee to monitor the use of AI in the legal profession and propose guidance for its specific use within Pennsylvania’s courts. The following year, the committee recommended an interim policy for the responsible use of AI by judges and court staff, which was adopted by the justices. That policy, still in effect, does not apply to lawyers or others outside government. The committee proposal would apply to all court filers.
Pennsylvania is not alone in crafting AI-related policies. On other US courts, stories have surfaced of lawyers submitting court briefs with false or fake information, often called “hallucinations.” Over the summer, a federal judge in Mississippi punished lawyers on both sides of a civil case who filed legal documents with fake citations after using AI. Two of those lawyers were barred from appearing in that district’s federal court for two years. Spotlight PA reported that filings in at least 13 Pennsylvania court cases in 2025 contained confirmed or implied AI hallucinations, including a high-profile case before an appellate court involving gender discrimination.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The proposal could set a precedent for how US state courts regulate the use of AI in legal filings, affecting lawyers, self-represented litigants, and the integrity of court records.
- Sanctions like case dismissal or fines give the rule real teeth, raising stakes for anyone using AI to prepare legal documents.
- The public comment period allows stakeholders, including bar associations, civil liberties groups, and tech companies, to shape the final rule before the Supreme Court votes.
Background
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court established an advisory committee on AI in 2024 to monitor its use in the legal profession and propose guidance. In 2025, the committee recommended an interim policy for judges and court staff, which was adopted. The new proposal extends similar requirements to all court filers, including lawyers and self-represented parties, amid growing concerns about AI-generated “hallucinations” in legal documents. Other US courts have also begun punishing lawyers who submit fabricated citations from AI.
Key Perspectives
Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence: wants to make all court filers aware that generative AI can produce “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated information” and require them to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content before submission.
Pennsylvania Bar Association: has not yet taken a position on the proposal, though its 2024 joint opinion with the Philadelphia Bar Association recommended lawyers verify the accuracy of all AI-generated content.
What to Watch
- The Nov. 24 deadline for public comments may attract significant input from bar associations, legal ethics experts, and civil liberties groups.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s eventual vote, and whether it adopts the proposal as-is or with changes.
- How other state courts respond to this proposal, potentially catalyzing similar rules nationwide.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedPennsylvania may require lawyers to certify that AI-generated citations are accurate.Spotlight PA: “a committee that advises the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing whether lawyers and other filers who use that tech should have to certify they double-checked the authenticity of citations and information in legal documents.”
- SupportedThe proposal would put the burden on court filers to verify AI-generated content, with possible sanctions for noncompliance.Spotlight PA: “Failure to comply could result in sanctions ranging from a reprimand to fines to outright dismissal of a case”
- SupportedThe committee’s proposal would require lawyers and other court filers, including people representing themselves, to certify they checked AI-generated content in court documents.Spotlight PA: “Those filers, including lawyers and people representing themselves, must “thoroughly review” the accuracy of any AI-generated content in court documents before submitting them, and certify compliance with the requirement.”
- SupportedThe committee said generative AI can produce “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated information.”Spotlight PA: “The Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence said it wants to make all court filers aware that generative AI can produce “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated information,””
- SupportedFilers would need to “thoroughly review” AI-generated content, including summaries of legal principles, citations and quotes.Spotlight PA: “Those filers, including lawyers and people representing themselves, must “thoroughly review” the accuracy of any AI-generated content in court documents before submitting them, and certify compliance with the requirement. That includes checking summaries of legal principles as well as all legal citations and quotes.”
- SupportedThe public and other interested parties have until Nov. 24 to comment.Spotlight PA: “The public and other interested parties have until Nov. 24 to comment or weigh in with any concerns or suggested changes.”
- SupportedAfter the comment period, the committee can revise the proposal or submit it to the seven justices, who will vote on whether to adopt it.Spotlight PA: “After that, the court’s AI advisory committee can either tweak or formally submit its proposal as is to the high court’s seven justices, who will then vote on whether to adopt it.”
- SupportedA spokesperson said the Pennsylvania Bar Association has not taken a position on the proposal.Spotlight PA: “The Pennsylvania Bar Association, which advocates for lawyers and the legal profession, has not yet taken a position on the proposal, according to a spokesperson.”
- SupportedIn 2024, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association issued a joint formal opinion with AI-use guidance, including that lawyers should verify AI-generated content.Spotlight PA: “in 2024, the statewide association and the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a joint formal opinion with guidance and best practices for using AI. Among them: Lawyers should verify the accuracy of all AI-generated content.”
- SupportedThe justices established an AI advisory committee in 2024.Spotlight PA: “In 2024, justices established an advisory committee to monitor the use of AI in the legal profession and propose guidance for its specific use within Pennsylvania’s courts.”
- SupportedThe following year, the committee recommended an interim AI policy for judges and court staff, and the justices adopted it.Spotlight PA: “The following year, the committee recommended an interim policy for the responsible use of AI by judges and court staff, which was adopted by the justices.”
- SupportedSpotlight PA reported that filings in at least 13 Pennsylvania court cases in 2025 contained confirmed or implied AI hallucinations.Spotlight PA: “Spotlight PA reported that filings in at least 13 Pennsylvania court cases in 2025 contained confirmed or implied AI hallucinations,”