New York State Courts — Interim AI Guidance

The New York State Unified Court System issued interim guidance in 2024 permitting court staff to use approved AI tools for limited administrative tasks while a permanent rule is developed. It is the most cautious of the major state-system frameworks and a useful reference for any large court system in pilot mode.

Scope of the interim guidance

• Permits use of approved tools for administrative work — scheduling, transcription summaries, document classification, and similar back-office functions.
• Bars use of generative AI for substantive decisional content, including draft opinions, jury instructions, and sentencing memoranda.
• Requires that confidential or sealed material never be entered into a non-approved tool.
• Requires documentation of which tools are used and for which functions.

The "pilot first" philosophy

New York's approach reflects a recognition that large court systems cannot move at the speed of a single judge's standing order. Interim guidance buys time for procurement review, vendor due diligence, accessibility analysis, and union consultation before a permanent rule is enacted.

Comparison to Ohio

Ohio's task force did not impose a similar prohibition on substantive decisional use. Instead, the Court relied on the Rules of Judicial Conduct (especially Rules 1.2, 2.5, and 2.9) to govern judicial use. The structural difference: New York chose categorical limits during a defined interim period; Ohio chose principle-based governance with ongoing oversight.

Practitioner takeaways

• If you appear before a New York state court, assume the staff supporting the judge operates under a narrower AI scope than counsel.
• The interim posture is likely to be revised. Track the permanent rule when it issues.
• The categorical bar on AI for "substantive decisional content" is a useful drafting model for firms writing their own internal use policies.

The current text of the interim guidance is available at the link above.