New York.
Attorney AI ethics guidance status for New York as of May 9, 2026. Comprehensive NYSBA AI report with recommendations.
New York bar AI ethics status. #
The New York State Bar Association's Task Force on Artificial Intelligence released a comprehensive report in April 2024 with recommendations on attorney AI use. The report is one of the most detailed state-level AI guidance documents and addresses the full spectrum: competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fee reasonableness, advertising, and access to justice. Multiple individual judges in the New York state Commercial Division and the federal S.D.N.Y. have separately issued AI standing orders.
Authoritative source: https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf
Last verified: . If this row text disagrees with the linked source, the source controls.
What this means in practice. #
For practitioners admitted in New York, the formal guidance above is the binding professional-conduct anchor for AI use. The recurring duties: (1) maintain competence in the AI tool, (2) protect client confidentiality (do not submit confidential material to public-version AI tools), (3) supervise AI output, and (4) verify all factual and legal content before submission.
Cross-jurisdictional consideration: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is broadly consistent with the New York guidance and serves as a federal anchor for multi-state practitioners. Where New York guidance is more specific or more restrictive than ABA Op. 512, the New York guidance controls within New York.
Comparison to ABA Op. 512. #
The April 2024 NYSBA Task Force Report is one of the most comprehensive state-level AI documents. It pre-dates ABA Op. 512 by three months and covers more ground.
- Access-to-justice frame. The NYSBA report addresses AI's implications for access to justice — a duty consideration ABA Op. 512 does not develop.
- Comprehensive rule mapping. The NYSBA report walks through Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4. ABA Op. 512 covers a similar set but more concisely.
- Court overlay. Multiple New York state Commercial Division judges and federal S.D.N.Y. judges have issued AI standing orders. United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2026, Rakoff, J.) — see section 04 — produced the most cited substantive AI ruling on attorney-client privilege and work-product, with cross-jurisdictional impact.
Federal court AI standing orders affecting New York practitioners. #
Multiple S.D.N.Y. judges issued post-Mata v. Avianca standing orders requiring AI-use disclosure and verification. Practitioners should consult each assigned judge's individual standing orders before filing.
United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503: held that defendant's use of public AI tools defeated attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Practitioner-relevant for any S.D.N.Y. matter involving AI use during representation. See our analysis.
Last verified: . The comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders is maintained by Bloomberg Law and Law360.
AI case-law context for New York. #
New York sits within the 2nd Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit). Decisions of the 2nd Circuit are binding on the federal courts within New York; state-court decisions of the New York appellate system bind New York's state courts; Supreme Court decisions are binding on everyone. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision directly addressing attorney AI use, so the controlling case law is at the circuit and district levels:
678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (Castel, J.) — the foundational AI sanctions case. Joint sanction of $5,000 against counsel and firm for citing fabricated cases generated by ChatGPT. The case that triggered the entire post-2023 federal AI standing-order movement.
91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) — the 2nd Circuit confirmed counsel's duty to verify AI-generated citations. Binding on all 2nd Circuit federal courts (Connecticut, New York, Vermont).
No. 1:25-cr-00503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) (Rakoff, J.) — held that defendant's use of public-version generative AI defeated attorney-client privilege and work-product protection on the privacy-policy face. Substantively the most significant federal AI ruling on privilege to date. Binding within S.D.N.Y.; persuasive throughout the 2nd Circuit and nationally.
have issued AI standing orders requiring verification and disclosure. Practitioners should consult each assigned judge's individual orders.
Practitioners in New York should treat the cases above as the operating framework for AI-related conduct until New York-specific binding precedent or New York bar guidance controls a particular question. The verification duty under Mata and Park v. Kim has been routinely cited in sanctions matters across all federal circuits including the 2nd Circuit.
New York legal landscape. #
- Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
- Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)
- Northern District of New York (N.D.N.Y.)
- Western District of New York (W.D.N.Y.)
New York has the second-largest legal market in the US after California. The New York State Bar Association is voluntary; mandatory registration is administered by the four Appellate Divisions, each of which has admission authority. Four federal districts; S.D.N.Y. (Manhattan) is the most cited federal trial court for commercial litigation in the country.
Most US states have adopted the substance of ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 — that the duty of competence requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Whether New York has adopted Comment 8 verbatim, in modified form, or relies on the underlying Rule 1.1 text alone, the substantive duty of technological competence applies to AI-related practice in New York.
New York-specific FAQ.
Has the New York bar issued formal AI ethics guidance?
Yes. New York has issued: NYSBA Task Force Report (Apr 2024) (2024). The opinion applies the New York Rules of Professional Conduct to attorney AI use. The primary source link in §01 above is authoritative; the comparison to ABA Op. 512 in §03 highlights where New York aligns with or diverges from the ABA framework.
Which federal districts cover New York?
New York has 4 federal districts: Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.), Northern District of New York (N.D.N.Y.), and Western District of New York (W.D.N.Y.). Federal AI standing orders are typically issued at the individual-judge level. The Bloomberg Law and Law360 trackers maintain the comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders nationwide.
Does New York have a mandatory unified bar?
Yes. The New York bar is a mandatory unified bar — all licensed attorneys must be members. AI ethics guidance issued by the bar applies to all admitted practitioners. Discipline for AI-related misconduct flows through the bar's formal disciplinary regime under the New York Court of Appeals's plenary supervisory authority.
What about large-firm practice in New York?
New York has approximately 180,000 active attorneys, one of the largest US legal markets. Large-firm practice is concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. Firm-wide AI policies, vendor diligence, and supervision frameworks under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct should be documented at the firm level and audited regularly. New York's ABA Op. 512-aligned practice expectations are particularly load-bearing in matters that span multiple jurisdictions.
Does AI vendor diligence apply in New York?
Yes. The supervisory duty under New York's analog to Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) applies to AI vendor relationships. North Carolina's 2024 FEO 1 frames AI vendors explicitly under Rule 5.3, and that framing has been treated as persuasive in other jurisdictions including New York. Vendor diligence — privacy-policy review, data-retention terms, training-on-customer-data clauses — is a precondition to selecting an AI tool for client work.