BILL NUMBER: S2698
SPONSOR: HOYLMAN-SIGAL
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to requir-
ing disclosure of use of generative artificial intelligence in a civil
action
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To require litigants to disclose use of generative artificial intelli-
gence in court filings and to attest to the accuracy of such papers
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill amends the civil practice law and rules to add a
new rule 2107 requiring certification of filings produced using genera-
tive artificial intelligence, and provides a definition of generative
artificial intelligence.
Section 2 of the bill amends rule 5528 of the civil practice law and
rules to clarify that filings in appellate courts are also subject to
the disclosure requirements of new rule 2107 of the civil practice law
and rules.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools that are
capable of drafting, editing, or creating citations for legal documents
poses risks and opportunities to the legal profession. While this tech-
nology has the potential to advance legal productivity and broaden
access to justice for underserved populations, the use of GenAI by
lawyers to produce court filings raises serious professional, ethical,
and policy concerns around the accuracy and quality of briefings in New
York courts.
GenAI tools are already at work in the legal profession. In June 2023, a
federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned two attor-
neys who had used ChatGPT to write a brief they had submitted to the
court. The brief referenced non-existent cases and included totally
fabricated quotations from false opinions. Another attorney was sanc-
tioned by the Second Circuit in January 2024 (see Park v. Kim, 22-2057
(2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024)) for not double-checking a brief drafted with
the help of GenAI that contained similar errors.
This trend has prompted judges across the country to establish policies
around the use of GenAI in legal filings. According to Law360, about 16%
of more than 1,600 U.S. district and magistrate judges had issued 23
standing orders on AI as of February 2024. As of May 2024, Ropes and
Gray LLP, which tracks such standing orders, has identified 36 standing
orders from state and federal judges across 13 states requiring attor-
neys to disclose and/or verify briefings filed with the court that were
drafted with the assistance of GenAI. Six such orders were in courtrooms
in New York.
This bill would codify such requirements in the civil practice law and
rules. It would require any attorney who used GenAI to draft legal docu-
ments to disclosure the use of such tools when the document is filed
with the court, and to certify that a human reviewed the filing before
it was submitted.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2023-2024: 59640 (Hoylman-Sigal), Died in Committee
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Takes effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become law.