AI Law Framework

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania: AI rules for lawyers

Pennsylvania, United States · Switch state

What this means for lawyers

No adopted statewide rule requires a lawyer to disclose or certify AI use in a Pennsylvania court filing. On 24 October 2026 the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee published a proposed notice that would require a certification on every document filed in any Unified Judicial System court. It is open for comment until 24 November 2026 and is not in force.

Check the county before you file. Butler County requires an AI affidavit on filings (order of 10 September 2024). Dauphin County's order of 17 September 2026 requires an affidavit on every filing stating whether generative AI was used, and takes effect thirty days after its 3 October 2026 Bulletin publication.

The Pennsylvania and Philadelphia bar associations' Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, which is advisory only, says a lawyer who uses AI must verify citations, protect confidentiality, communicate with the client about AI use (and, if necessary, obtain the client's consent before using certain tools), and keep AI-related charges reasonable and disclosed.

The Commonwealth Court struck an appellee's brief on 24 November 2025 because it was full of generative-AI errors, and pointed lawyers to Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). The Superior Court, in a reported opinion filed 19 October 2026, noted the Rule 3.3(a)(1) duty of candor and reminded counsel of his ethical obligations after his filings quoted a case that does not exist.

As at .

Telling the court and the client

  • Tell the courtVaries by court

    Client disclosure/consent: depends — no Supreme Court rule found that requires disclosure of every use; Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 says the lawyer must communicate with the client about AI use and, if necessary, obtain consent before using certain tools. The opinion is advisory and does not bind the Disciplinary Board.

    Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence
  • Tell the clientVaries

    Same basis and sources as above.

Choose a practice areaAll US federal courts, states and DCEvery jurisdiction

What changed in Pennsylvania in the last 12 months

AI instruments

Full notes

Courts and tribunals

3 more in Courts and tribunalsShow all
Show 3 more instrumentsExpand for more

State bar and regulators

1 more in State bar and regulatorsShow all
Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI)

SecondaryPennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar AssociationDate not statedLast checked 10 October 2026

Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in Pennsylvania.

Government and other bodies

1 more in Government and other bodiesShow all

Sources

13 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.Show all sources

Before the work starts

  • Define the matter

    Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.

  • Confirm the source material

    Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.

  • Record review and approval

    Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

  • Jurisdiction

    Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.

Limits on AI assistance

  • Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.
United StatesUnited States federal courtsAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFlorida