AI citation filing checklistbefore you file a brief, motion or other court paper

Why this came up in late October and early November 2026

On 24 October 2026, the Pennsylvania Bulletin published Doc. No. 26-1549 (56 Pa.B. 6888), a proposed notice from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence, about the use of generative AI by all court filers and a certification of compliance. The committee invited comments by 24 November 2026. The text is a proposal. It was not a rule in force when this page was checked on 12 November 2026. As published, it would require filers who use generative AI to review and check accuracy, including that cited authorities actually exist and that quoted material appears in the identified source, and to certify compliance.

Spotlight PA (Angela Couloumbis, 6 November 2026) reported the same proposal for a general audience, and noted that after the comment date the committee can tweak or submit it to the justices, who then vote. The article said the Pennsylvania Bar Association had not yet taken a position.

A related records lesson appears in reporting on Farhat v. Cutera, Inc., 2026 WL 3257572 (N.D. Cal. 28 October 2026). EDRM, in a note published on 3 November 2026, described counsel's declaration: citation errors were identified in Westlaw and a corrected draft was sent to an assistant, but an earlier, uncorrected version was converted to PDF and filed, and the discrepancy was not caught in a review of the final PDF. The court, as EDRM reports it, declined to impose sanctions, and said it will not consider the replacement authorities offered in the declaration. That is one court's handling of one filing. The useful habit is general: review the final file, and keep a dated copy of the exact document that was filed.

Measured demand sits in search and in legal press. Autocomplete checked on 12 November 2026, about 7:42 PM Australia/Brisbane, returned suggestion clusters for "ai hallucinated citations", including "ai hallucination legal citations" and "ai hallucination citation checker". X posts about the Pennsylvania proposal in the following days were modest: a 7 November post by @69News had 984 impressions when searched on 12 November. Counts will keep moving.

The checks are written for the next filing, in any court. Always follow the current rules that apply to that filing. A proposal is not the same as a rule in force.

Sources: Pennsylvania Bulletin Doc. No. 26-1549, Spotlight PA, 6 November 2026, and EDRM's 3 November note on Farhat v. Cutera.

If a filing is one you or a client may need to stand behind later

Before you file:

1. Check each citation in the authority itself, and check quoted language against that source.
2. Review the final PDF or paper copy you will file, and keep a dated copy of that exact file, separate from earlier drafts.
3. Make a TimeBind of the exact file you already hold. The fingerprint is made in your browser and the file stays on your device. You can later download a Proof of Time Certificate. A firm can offer a client that kind of record of the filed document.

A TimeBind shows the exact file existed no later than the recorded time and still matches. It is not a finding that the citations are correct, and it is not legal advice. First Pooled TimeBind free, then from US$5; an ASAP TimeBind is US$15.

What a TimeBind shows, and what it does not. It shows that an exact file existed no later than a recorded time and that a copy shown later still matches its fingerprint. It does not show who made the file, who owns it, that its contents are true, or whether AI was used to make or edit it. This is general information, not legal advice.