AI rules by state · PA
AI Rules for Lawyers in Pennsylvania 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- Case-by-case
- Governing guidance
- Joint Formal Op. 2024-200 (2024)
- Sanctions on record
- Saber v. Navy Federal (2025), issues waived
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1, Comment 8
- AI / technology CLE
- No tech or AI requirement
Quick answer
Pennsylvania does not have a statewide rule requiring lawyers to disclose AI use to a court. The joint bar opinion advises lawyers to communicate with clients about AI use and to obtain consent, and disclosure to a court depends on that court's own standing orders. Across the board, Pennsylvania lawyers must verify every AI-generated citation, because filing fabricated cases has already resulted in adverse rulings in the state's courts.
Ethics guidance
Pennsylvania Bar and Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200
May 2024
Pennsylvania's guidance is Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, issued by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association in May 2024. It is advisory and does not bind the courts or the Disciplinary Board.
The opinion sets out core duties for AI use. A lawyer must understand how the tool works and its risks, verify all AI-generated citations and content, protect client confidentiality, communicate with clients and obtain consent regarding AI use, and bill AI costs fairly. The opinion treats these as applications of existing professional conduct rules rather than new obligations. The recurring theme is verification, because the duty to review AI output may not be delegated back to the tool.
Source: Pennsylvania Bar and Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PA Bar PDF)
Disclosure rules
Are Pennsylvania lawyers required to disclose AI use?
Pennsylvania has no statewide rule requiring disclosure of AI use to a court. The joint opinion advises lawyers to communicate with clients about AI use and to obtain consent.
Disclosure to a court depends on that court's own standing orders. No Pennsylvania-wide judicial AI-disclosure rule was confirmed as of June 2026, so the practical step is to review the assigned judge's chambers rules in each matter.
Source: Pennsylvania Bar and Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PA Bar PDF)
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania courts have begun to address AI hallucinations. In Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), a litigant cited fabricated AI-generated cases. The court treated them as non-pertinent authority and held the appellate issues waived. The court imposed no monetary sanction in that matter.
The broader pattern is larger. Reporting in early 2026 identified filings in roughly a dozen Pennsylvania matters during 2025 that contained confirmed or suspected AI hallucinations, most of them by self-represented litigants. Pennsylvania judges may impose fines or refer offenders to disciplinary authorities.
Sources: Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Pa. Superior Court opinion (PDF), Spotlight PA, AI hallucinations in Pennsylvania courts
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1, Comment 8)
The competence duty in Pennsylvania is Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. Comment 8 directs lawyers to stay abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. The joint opinion reads this duty to require a working understanding of any AI tool a lawyer uses, sufficient to evaluate its output critically.
Source: Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Pa. Code)
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania requires 12 CLE credits each year, including at least 2 ethics credits. There is no AI-specific or technology-specific CLE requirement as of June 2026, though AI programs can count toward the general requirement.
Source: Pennsylvania CLE Board, FAQ
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Pennsylvania lawyers
Pennsylvania courts have already seen fabricated AI citations reach filings, so verification of authority is the duty to treat most seriously here.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
Pennsylvania AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Pennsylvania’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the Pennsylvania state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo