[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]
Unrepresented plaintiff Reginald Bradwell filed a federal lawsuit challenging the New York State court’s A.I. policy. A U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without leave to amend. The District Judge agreed. Reading between the lines, it seems that the plaintiff asserted that the New York State court rules on A.I. imposed a duty on him to use commercial A.I. systems that he could not afford, although that is not expressly stated in the court’s decision.
Mr. Bradwell sued the Governor and Chief Administrative Judge alleging that the A.I. policy had a “direct chilling effect on self-represented litigants” in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Proceeding in forma pauperis, he appears to have asserted that he could not afford expensive commercial databases. The court wrote:
The regulation cited by Plaintiff states that “[i]t is the policy of the Unified Court System that the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court.” 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 161.3.
Bradwell v. Hochul, 2026 WL 2983166 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2026).
Under 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 161.3: “It is the policy of the Unified Court System that the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court. Since those duties and responsibilities already apply to all submissions, regardless of whether AI tools were used, attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers.”
Under §161.4: “A court may, in its discretion, implement a part rule governing the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to the court. If a court determines that such a rule is appropriate, the court is encouraged to adopt the model rule set forth in Appendix A of this Part.”
Under Appendix A:
Every attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in preparing any paper submitted to this court is expected to understand that tool’s capabilities and limitations. Attorneys and parties need to be aware that AI tools, among other risks and limitations, can generate fabricated information or fictitious citations to authority (commonly known as hallucinations). Under existing authority, by signing a paper and submitting it to this court, an attorney or party certifies that the paper does not contain any false material factual statement or any frivolous legal argument (see, e.g., 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, 130-1.1a), and an attorney who submits any paper to this court is additionally bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(b), filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before this court is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content. If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.
The Bradwell court wrote: “The text of these regulations applies to attorneys and parties. Plaintiff has not presented a single law or rule which unconstitutionally discriminates against pro se parties. He has also failed to state any facts explaining why he is unable to comply with any artificial intelligence limitations or compliance requirements. Insofar as Plaintiff references ‘expensive commercial legal database (e.g., Westlaw, LexisNexis),’ he does not allege any rule preventing his access to those databases.”
After addressing immunity of the Governor and Judge, the Bradwell court wrote: “The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Katz that amendment would be futile because Plaintiff has not presented any facts which suggest an ability to overcome the immunity doctrines nor is there any indication of a valid claim as New York courts do not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence for pro se litigants.”
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
