Does Pennsylvania require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No

Does Pennsylvania require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No. Pennsylvania's interim AI policy, issued September 2025, governs judicial officers and court personnel only. There's no statewide attorney disclosure mandate, and the AI Advisory Committee is still reviewing whether one is needed.

For managing partners in Pennsylvania, this means you're operating in a gap period. The state has acknowledged AI's impact on the courts and started regulating internally, but hasn't extended those rules to the practicing bar. That gap won't last forever — the Advisory Committee's recommendations will shape what comes next.

What Pennsylvania's Interim Policy Covers

The September 2025 interim policy applies to judicial officers and court personnel across the Unified Judicial System. It sets guidelines for how judges and court staff may use AI tools in their official duties — including requirements for human review of AI outputs, prohibitions on using AI for certain sensitive decisions, and transparency expectations when AI informs court operations. The policy is explicitly labeled 'interim,' signaling that a more comprehensive framework is under development.

Why Attorneys Aren't Covered — Yet

Pennsylvania's approach mirrors California and Massachusetts in regulating the court system first and considering attorney rules second. The rationale: courts can control their own operations immediately through administrative policy, while attorney-facing rules require formal rulemaking through the Supreme Court's procedural channels. The AI Advisory Committee is evaluating whether existing Rules of Professional Conduct are sufficient or whether Pennsylvania needs AI-specific attorney obligations. Their recommendations will determine the timeline for any attorney-facing rules.

The AI Advisory Committee's Role

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court established an AI Advisory Committee to study artificial intelligence's impact on the court system and legal practice. This committee is reviewing attorney AI use, court operations, access to justice implications, and ethical considerations. Its mandate includes recommending whether new rules, guidelines, or amendments to existing rules are needed. The committee includes judges, practitioners, technologists, and legal ethics experts. Their recommendations carry significant weight — when they speak, the Supreme Court listens.

How Pennsylvania Differs from Federal Courts in the State

Federal courts in Pennsylvania haven't waited for state action. Individual judges in the Eastern District (Philadelphia) and Western District (Pittsburgh) have issued standing orders requiring AI disclosure or certification. The Middle District has also seen AI-related orders. Pennsylvania state courts have no equivalent attorney-facing requirements. This federal-state split means attorneys practicing in both systems face different obligations depending on forum — a familiar compliance challenge that requires courthouse-specific protocols.

Compliance Strategy During the Gap Period

Smart firms aren't waiting for the Advisory Committee. First, implement internal AI verification protocols now — whatever rules eventually emerge, citation checking and accuracy review will be required. Second, monitor the Advisory Committee's public proceedings and published materials for signals about the direction of future rules. Third, build your compliance documentation infrastructure. Track which AI tools are used, by whom, and for what purpose. Fourth, ensure all attorneys understand that existing professional conduct rules — competence, candor, supervision — apply to AI-assisted work regardless of whether AI-specific rules exist. Fifth, maintain a list of Pennsylvania federal judges with AI standing orders to avoid compliance gaps in federal practice.

The Bottom Line: Pennsylvania's September 2025 interim policy covers only judicial officers and court personnel — attorneys face no statewide AI disclosure requirement yet, but the AI Advisory Committee's upcoming recommendations will likely change that.