--- title: "Pennsylvania: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/pennsylvania" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-PA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Pennsylvania: AI rules for lawyers > Pennsylvania: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/pennsylvania Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies 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](https://lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joint-Formal-Opinion-2024-200.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Pennsylvania in the last 12 months - 19 October 2026 · Dated: [Commonwealth v. Butler, 2026 PA Super 232 (No. 3321 EDA 2025)](#ai-rule-jr-us-pa-super-ct-butler-2026) - 10 December 2025 · Dated: [General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-pa-jeab-guidance-2-2025) - 8 December 2025 · Dated: [Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel](#ai-rule-jr-us-pa-interim-genai-policy) - 24 November 2025 · Dated: [Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter v. Bucks County Community College, No. 1172 C.D. 2025](#ai-rule-jr-us-pa-cc-abc-1172-cd-2025) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Commonwealth v. Butler, 2026 PA Super 232 (No. 3321 EDA 2025) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2026; 2026 PA Super 232 - Effective date: 19 October 2026 - Status: 19 October 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S25013-26o%20-%20106965461378189488.pdf?cb=1 A reported Superior Court opinion affirming a judgment of sentence. The Court separately addressed counsel's filings, which quoted language that does not appear in six real cases and quoted a seventh case that does not exist. The Court said it could not be certain counsel used generative AI, and that no other explanation readily suggested itself. It reminded counsel of Pa.R.P.C. 3.3(a)(1), the duty not to make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. It did not impose a disciplinary sanction. It cited two earlier Superior Court opinions on hallucinated citations, which were not read for this record. Key points: - Reported opinion filed 19 October 2026 - Counsel quoted a nonexistent case and language that does not appear in six other cases - In a footnote the Court noted Pa.R.P.C. 3.3(a)(1), and it reminded counsel of his ethical obligations to the courts of Pennsylvania - No disciplinary sanction is stated in the opinion - The Court could not say with certainty that generative AI was the source #### General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline - Issuer: Judicial Ethics Advisory Board - Date on page: ISSUED: December 10, 2025 - Effective date: 10 December 2025 - Status: 10 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20251215/201356-generalguidanceno.2-2025.pdf General guidance for judicial officers under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the rules for magisterial district judges, read with the Supreme Court's interim generative-AI policy. It says competence includes understanding generative AI and checking the accuracy of AI work product, and that staff should be trained and supervised. It says there is no disclosure requirement currently, while the Court's policy says personnel may be required to disclose, and that best practice is to track generative-AI use in chambers. Compliance with general guidance may be taken into account in judicial discipline. It governs judges, not lawyers appearing before them, and it points judges to Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 when responding to possible lawyer misconduct. Key points: - Applies to judicial officers, not to lawyers as advocates - Judicial officers must understand generative AI and check its work product - The guidance says there is no current disclosure requirement, and recommends tracking use in chambers - Compliance may be considered if judicial discipline is later in issue #### Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: Order dated 9 September 2025 (Judicial Administration Docket No. 643); Pennsylvania Bulletin 20 September 2025 (55 Pa.B. 6696) - Effective date: 8 December 2025 - Status: 8 December 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1 The Supreme Court approved this policy on 9 September 2025, on the recommendation of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee, effective 8 December 2025. It applies to judicial officers and court personnel of the Unified Judicial System who use generative AI on court technology resources. Personnel may use only tools approved by court leadership, must have a human review the output, and may share non-public information only with a secured AI system that does not retain it, train on it, or expose it. The policy sets no disclosure or certification duty for lawyers appearing in court. Key points: - Applies to judges, their staff, state-level court employees, and county-level court employees under a president judge - Only leadership-approved generative AI tools may be used on court technology resources - Personnel may be required to disclose generative AI use in their work product - Humans must review output, and personnel remain responsible for accuracy - Described by the Court as an interim policy #### Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter v. Bucks County Community College, No. 1172 C.D. 2025 - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: FILED: November 24, 2025; marked Opinion not reported - Effective date: 24 November 2025 - Status: 24 November 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20251212/212841-1172cd2025-memorandumopiniononuseofgenerativeaibyattorneys.pdf An unreported single-judge memorandum opinion. The President Judge denied leave to file an amended brief and struck an appellee's brief that was admittedly full of factual and legal errors from generative AI. The Court said that using AI is not itself the problem, and that it cannot condone filing a document containing numerous errors. It pointed lawyers to Pa.R.P.C. 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) and to Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200. It did not decide whether any ethics rule was violated. The merits of the appeal were left to the Court en banc. Key points: - Brief struck; leave to file an amended brief, sought two days before en banc argument, was refused - Cites Pa.R.P.C. 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) - The Court did not decide whether an ethical rule was violated - Unreported memorandum opinion; not a rule of court #### Standing Order re Artificial Intelligence in cases assigned to Judge Baylson - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Baylson) - Date on page: DATED: 6/6/2023 - Effective date: 6 June 2023 - Status: 6 June 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/locrules/standord/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf A federal judge's standing order for cases assigned to that judge. If an attorney or a self-represented party used AI in any way to prepare a complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper, they must disclose that use in a clear and plain factual statement and certify that every citation to the law or the record has been verified as accurate. It does not apply to other judges of the district or to Pennsylvania state courts. Key points: - Applies only to cases assigned to Judge Baylson - Disclose any use of AI in preparing the filing - Certify that every citation to the law or the record was verified - Dated 6 June 2023 #### Pa.R.P.C. 1.1, Comment [8]: technology competence and court policies - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: 1 July 2018 - Status: 1 July 2018; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/204/chapter81/s1.1.html Comment [8] to the competence rule says that, to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study, and comply with applicable CLE requirements. It also says a lawyer should be familiar with the policies of the courts in which the lawyer practises, including the Case Records Public Access Policy. The comment does not name artificial intelligence. The technology wording predates 2018. The Supreme Court's order of 23 April 2018, effective 1 July 2018, made on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, added only the sentence about court policies (shown as new text in 48 Pa.B. 2582). Key points: - Technology competence sits in Comment [8] to Rule 1.1 - Lawyers should know the policies of the courts in which they practise - The comment does not mention AI by name - Court-policies sentence added effective 1 July 2018; the technology wording is older; both still printed in the current Code #### Administrative Order AO-08-2026: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County - Date on page: Order dated 17 September 2026; 56 Pa.B. 6483, Saturday, October 3, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Order dated 17 September 2026; 56 Pa.B. 6483, Saturday, October 3, 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol56/56-40/1440.html A local administrative order for Dauphin County, docketed as No. 10-08-MD-2026, No. 2026-CV-00105-AO, No. 2226-0001, and AO-08-2026. Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose whether generative AI was used in any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other filing, and must attach one of two prescribed affidavits. One affidavit says some portion was drafted by generative AI and that a person checked that language. The other says no portion was drafted by generative AI. Both are made under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904. The order is effective thirty days after publication in the Bulletin dated 3 October 2026, so on this research date the thirty days had not yet run if counted from 3 October. Key points: - Local order for Dauphin County - An affidavit is required on every listed filing, whether or not AI was used - If AI was used, a person must have checked quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis - The order says it takes effect thirty days after Bulletin publication and does not print a calendar effective date - Published 3 October 2026 #### Administrative Order: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (MsD No. 2024-40258) - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Court of Common Pleas of Butler County - Date on page: Order dated 10 September 2024; 54 Pa.B. 5980, Saturday, September 21, 2024 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Order dated 10 September 2024; 54 Pa.B. 5980, Saturday, September 21, 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol54/54-38/1332.html A local administrative order for the Butler County court of common pleas. Attorneys and self-represented parties must disclose any use of generative AI in a complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other filing, and must attach an affidavit. The affidavit says either that no portion was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis, was checked by a person. The signer remains responsible under the attorney-discipline rules. The statement is made under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904. The order is effective thirty days after its publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Key points: - Local order for Butler County, not a statewide rule - An affidavit is required on the filings the order lists - The affidavit attests either that AI drafted nothing, or that a person checked the AI-drafted language - False attestation is exposed to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 - Effective thirty days after the 21 September 2024 Bulletin; the order does not print a calendar date #### Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: No date shown on the page - Effective date: Not stated - Status: No date shown on the page; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacourts.us/artificial-intelligence-advisory-committee The Supreme Court established the committee in 2024 to monitor artificial intelligence and generative AI, assess its use in the legal field, and propose guidance for responsible use inside the Unified Judicial System. Members include jurists from each court level, court administration, county filing offices, and the Court's rules committees. The page says the committee's initial work produced the interim policy for judicial officers and court personnel, which the Court adopted on 9 September 2025 with effect from 8 December 2025. The page does not announce a rule for lawyers. Key points: - Established in 2024 to monitor AI and propose guidance for the Unified Judicial System - Initial product was the interim policy for judges and court personnel - The page states no attorney filing or certification requirement #### Proposed Notice Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by All Court Filers and Certification of Compliance - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Date on page: 56 Pa.B. 6888, Saturday, October 24, 2026; comments due November 24, 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol56/56-43/1549.html This is a proposal, not a rule. The committee invites comment by 24 November 2026 on a notice it is considering proposing to the Supreme Court. If adopted, any filer who uses generative AI to help create a document for any Unified Judicial System court would have to check that citations exist, quotations match the source, summaries are supported, and stated facts have a basis in the record. Every filer would have to include a set certification in all documents submitted to a court, either on a separate form or inserted in the filing. The draft lists sanctions a court could impose, including reprimand, refusing to consider the filing, dismissal, costs and attorneys' fees, and an order to correct the filing. The explanatory report says the statewide notice is intended to replace local rules and forms on the same topic. Key points: - Not in force; comments are due 24 November 2026 - The draft certification would go on every filing, in paper or in an e-filing system, including PACFile if later adopted - Court filers are defined to include attorneys, self-represented litigants, and parties - Courts covered would include the appellate courts, common pleas, Philadelphia Municipal Court, and magisterial district courts - The report says some counties already require AI affidavits, without naming them #### Standing Order re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in cases before Judge Marston - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Marston) - Date on page: No date printed on the order - Effective date: Not stated - Status: No date printed on the order; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/marpold.pdf A federal judge's standing order for cases before that judge. A party, represented or not, who uses a generative AI tool in preparing or drafting any document filed with the Court must disclose that use at filing. The certification must identify the tool, explain in a short factual statement how it was used, verify that each citation to the law or the record was diligently reviewed and is authentic and accurate, and bear a wet signature. The order gives examples of tools, including ChatGPT, Claude, CoCounsel, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Harvey, Legora, and Perplexity. Failure to comply may lead to sanctions, the filing being struck, loss of filing privileges, or a referral to a state bar. It does not apply outside that judge's cases. Key points: - Applies only to cases before Judge Marston - The certification must name the tool and explain how it was used - Citations must be reviewed and certified as authentic and accurate - A wet signature is required - The order itself has no date ### State bar and regulators #### Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI) - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 10 October 2026 - URL: https://aistandardofcare.com/legal-ethics/states/pennsylvania/ - Secondary source - Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in Pennsylvania. Lawyers must understand AI, verify all citations and must not make false or misleading submissions. ### Government and other bodies #### 4 Pa. Code Chapter 7, Subchapter KKK: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies (Executive Order 2023-19) - Type: Government policy or guidance · Government guidance - Issuer: Governor of Pennsylvania - Date on page: Executive Order No. 2023-19, dated September 20, 2023, 53 Pa.B. 6423; Code page reflects changes effective through 56 Pa.B. 5370 (August 8, 2026) - Effective date: 20 September 2023 - Status: 20 September 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/004/chapter7/subchapKKKtoc.html Executive Order 2023-19 is codified as 4 Pa. Code Chapter 7, Subchapter KKK. It sets standards for generative AI used by a Commonwealth agency under the Governor's jurisdiction. An agency using generative AI must confirm that it produces accurate and verifiable information. Section 7.998 says the subchapter takes effect immediately and remains until the Governor amends or rescinds it. The Code page states that it reflects changes effective through 8 August 2026. The subchapter does not regulate private law firms or the courts. Key points: - Binds Commonwealth agencies under the Governor, including their use of generative AI - Accuracy duty: confirm that generative AI output is accurate and verifiable - Takes effect immediately and continues until amended or rescinded - Does not regulate private legal practice or the Unified Judicial System ## Sources 13 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - Superior Court of Pennsylvania: [Commonwealth v. Butler, 2026 PA Super 232 (No. 3321 EDA 2025)](https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S25013-26o%20-%20106965461378189488.pdf?cb=1) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Judicial Ethics Advisory Board: [General Ethics Guidance No. 2-2025: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20251215/201356-generalguidanceno.2-2025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: [Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel](https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: [Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter v. Bucks County Community College, No. 1172 C.D. 2025](https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20251212/212841-1172cd2025-memorandumopiniononuseofgenerativeaibyattorneys.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Baylson): [Standing Order re Artificial Intelligence in cases assigned to Judge Baylson](https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/locrules/standord/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: [Pa.R.P.C. 1.1, Comment 8: technology competence and court policies](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/204/chapter81/s1.1.html) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County: [Administrative Order AO-08-2026: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol56/56-40/1440.html) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: [Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee](https://www.pacourts.us/artificial-intelligence-advisory-committee) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Marston): [Standing Order re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in cases before Judge Marston](https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/marpold.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association: [Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (AI)](https://aistandardofcare.com/legal-ethics/states/pennsylvania/) · last checked 10 October 2026 - [Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence](https://lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joint-Formal-Opinion-2024-200.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Pennsylvania House of Representatives](https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hr331) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Pennsylvania House of Representatives](https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2678) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 13 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*