# New York Part 161 AI Court Rule: What to Know

> New York's Part 161 permits AI but requires independent verification that filings contain no fabricated authorities. What the rule asks and how to comply.

[Home](https://rankshieldlegal.com/) / [Blog](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/) / Litigation & Evidence Court AI rules
# New York's Part 161 Makes AI Verification a Court-Wide Duty
New York's Unified Court System adopted 22 NYCRR Part 161, "Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology," effective June 1, 2026. The rule permits attorneys to use AI, declines to impose a system-wide disclosure requirement, and instead requires independent human review confirming that filings contain no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material. This guide explains what the rule actually asks, how it compares to Illinois and to individual-judge orders, and how firms can prove verification happened.

By [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/), Founder, RankShield ** 20 min read ** Published July 14, 2026

New York's Unified Court System adopted 22 NYCRR Part 161, "Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology," on March 25, 2026, effective June 1, 2026 [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). The rule permits attorneys and parties to use AI in preparing court papers, expressly declines to impose a system-wide disclosure requirement, and instead requires a person to independently confirm that any filing contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing the paper, the filer certifies that this review was conducted. The obligation runs across every court in the system rather than resting on one judge's standing order.
That design is worth understanding precisely, because it marks a shift in how courts are governing AI in litigation. The early wave of judicial responses focused on disclosure: tell the court whether you used a generative tool. Part 161 sets that question aside and puts the weight on verification instead. It does not ask whether you used AI. It asks whether you checked what AI produced. This piece walks through what the rule requires, why New York chose verification over disclosure, how the same logic already governs filings in Illinois, and what a verify-first regime means for firms that need to show their work if a filing is questioned.

## What Part 161 requires, stated plainly
Part 161 permits AI, declines a blanket disclosure requirement, and requires the filer to independently confirm no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material. Signing the paper certifies that review happened.
Part 161 permits the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court papers. It does not require attorneys to disclose that they used it. What it does require is a human check: any attorney or party who uses an AI tool in preparing a paper filed in or submitted to a New York court must carefully review that paper and independently ensure it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). The act of signing the paper certifies that this review was conducted.
The rule took effect June 1, 2026, after being adopted on March 25, 2026, and it applies across the Unified Court System rather than court by court [[2]](#ref-2). That system-wide reach is the feature that distinguishes it from the standing-order model that preceded it. Where a standing order binds only the filings in front of one judge, Part 161 sets a single expectation for civil and criminal matters throughout New York's state courts.
The rule also includes an optional model provision, set out in an appendix, that individual courts may adopt. Under that model provision, a signature certifies careful review and confirmation that the paper contains no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material, and it is backed by existing enforcement tools: the sanctions available under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and the candor obligations of Rule 3.3 [[2]](#ref-2). In other words, the rule does not invent a new penalty regime. It attaches the verification duty to instruments courts already use.

## How New York arrived at a verify-first rule
The pressure behind Part 161 is the same pressure that produced individual-judge orders across the country: a documented pattern of filings containing citations that do not correspond to real decisions. Generative systems can produce text shaped exactly like a genuine citation, with a plausible case name, a reporter volume, a page number, and a parenthetical holding, none of which point to an actual case. That output is fluent and confident, which is what makes it dangerous inside a brief and easy to pass through a review focused on form rather than substance.
New York's response was to write one rule for the whole system rather than leave the question to accumulate as a patchwork of individual orders. The Unified Court System adopted the rule on March 25, 2026, with an effective date of June 1, 2026, giving the bar a defined window to adjust before the obligation applied [[2]](#ref-2). The choice to legislate at the system level, rather than to wait for each judge to act, reflects a judgment that the problem was general enough to warrant a general answer.
It is worth being careful about what the rule does and does not settle. Part 161 does not resolve every open question about AI in litigation, and it does not displace the professional-responsibility rules that already govern candor to the court. It adds a specific, signed representation about the contents of a filing, and it makes that representation a court-wide default rather than a courtroom-specific one. The narrower point matters: this is a verification duty attached to a signature, not a broad new code of AI conduct.

Source: 22 NYCRR Part 161 Download SVG

## The certification hidden inside your signature
Under Part 161 the ordinary signature carries the attestation. Where AI was used, signing represents that a person reviewed the filing and confirmed no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material.
The mechanism Part 161 uses is subtle and easy to underestimate. It does not require a separate certificate or a disclosure box. It makes the ordinary signature on a filing carry an additional meaning: by signing, the filer certifies that the required review was conducted [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). The signature you already provide becomes the vehicle for the attestation.
That framing changes what a signature represents. Before Part 161, signing a paper carried the familiar representations that attach to a court filing. Under the rule, in matters where AI was used to prepare the paper, the same signature now also represents that a person carefully reviewed the filing and independently confirmed it contains no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material. The representation is present, factual, and testable. A judge, opposing counsel, or a later reviewer can check the authorities line by line, and the signature is what makes any failure the signer's responsibility rather than a diffuse mistake.
The practical consequence is that the gap between believing a filing is clean and certifying that it is becomes a gap you sign across. "I assume the citations are fine" and "I certify a review confirmed no fabricated material" are different statements, and Part 161 puts your name behind the second one. Our companion guide on [what court AI-certification orders require you to attest](https://rankshieldlegal.com/court-ai-certification-orders/) works through the same distinction in the standing-order context, and it applies with equal force here.

## Why Part 161 declined a blanket disclosure requirement
A notable feature of Part 161 is what it leaves out. The rule expressly declines to impose a system-wide requirement that attorneys disclose their use of AI [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). That is a deliberate choice, and it separates New York's approach from the disclosure-first orders that some individual judges adopted earlier.
The reasoning behind a verify-first design is straightforward once stated. A disclosure requirement tells the court that a tool was used, but it does nothing on its own to confirm that the output was checked. A lawyer can disclose AI use and still file a fabricated citation; a lawyer can decline to use AI at all and still file a bad citation copied from a stale memo. Disclosure locates the tool. Verification locates the defect. Part 161 targets the defect directly by requiring the review that catches fabricated material, whether or not that material came from an AI system.
This is not a claim that disclosure is worthless or that New York rejected it on principle. Individual courts may still adopt their own requirements, and other jurisdictions have taken different paths. The point is narrower: New York decided that at the system level, the obligation worth imposing uniformly was the duty to verify, not the duty to announce. For firms, that means the compliance question is not "did we tell the court we used AI" but "can we show that someone confirmed the filing contains no fabricated authorities."
Individual New York courts may still adopt the optional model provision or their own requirements. Part 161 declines a disclosure requirement at the system level; it does not forbid one in a given courtroom [[2]](#ref-2).

## Illinois reached the same destination a year earlier
New York is not the first court system to choose verification and accountability over mandatory disclosure. The Illinois Supreme Court adopted its Policy on Artificial Intelligence effective January 1, 2025 [[3]](#ref-3) [[4]](#ref-4). The two policies were written independently and differ in form, but they land in a similar place on the central question.
The Illinois policy authorizes AI use and states that it should not be discouraged. In its words, the use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, and court staff "may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized" provided it complies with legal and ethical standards [[4]](#ref-4). The policy does not require disclosure of AI use in filings. Instead, it holds users fully accountable for their final work product and requires that all users thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding [[3]](#ref-3) [[4]](#ref-4). Attorneys, judges, and self-represented litigants are accountable for what they file, regardless of the technology used.
Read side by side, New York and Illinois describe the same posture in different registers. Both permit AI. Both decline a mandatory disclosure rule. Both put the weight on human review and accountability for the final product. The convergence is the useful signal here: two large court systems, acting a year apart, reached compatible conclusions about where the obligation should sit. That does not make the pattern universal, but it does suggest a direction that firms filing in multiple states should plan around.
Jan 1, 2025 effective date of the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, which authorizes AI, declines mandatory disclosure, and holds users accountable for their work product [3] [4]

## How New York, Illinois, and individual-judge orders compare
The three models most litigators encounter in 2026 are New York's system-wide Part 161, the Illinois Supreme Court policy, and the individual-judge standing orders that predate both. They overlap on the core duty and diverge on scope, disclosure, and enforcement. The table below sets out what each one requires, based on the governing texts and, for standing orders, on the aggregate picture that public trackers describe.
Two cautions apply to the standing-order column. First, standing orders are not uniform: their triggers, wording, and consequences differ from one judge to the next, so any single description is a generalization rather than a rule you can rely on for a specific matter. Second, there is no central registry of these orders; the landscape is tracked by law-firm trackers rather than by any official source, and one such tracker reports more than a hundred active court AI orders binding attorney filings [[5]](#ref-5). Treat that count as directional.
Requirement New York Part 161 Illinois SC Policy Individual-judge standing orders
AI use permitted Yes, expressly permitted Yes, authorized and should not be discouraged Usually permitted; some restrict or condition use
Mandatory disclosure of AI use No, declined system-wide No, not required in filings Varies: some require it on every filing, some only when AI is used, some not at all
Human verification of authorities Required: confirm no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material Required: thoroughly review AI content before submission Commonly required, in varying language
Accountability for final filing Signer certifies review by signing User accountable for final work product Typically the signer, per the order and existing rules
Scope System-wide, civil and criminal Statewide policy across Illinois courts One judge's cases only
Enforcement referenced Existing tools: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 sanctions and Rule 3.3 Existing ethical and professional-conduct rules Order-specific, plus existing sanctions authority

Standing-order details vary by judge and are not centrally registered. Confirm the specific order for the judge assigned to your matter before relying on any general description [[5]](#ref-5).

## What a verify-first regime asks firms to prove
A disclosure rule asks what you said. A verification rule asks what you can show. Part 161 is the second kind, so the defensible answer is a retained record of the review, not a recollection of it.
A disclosure rule and a verification rule ask for different things at the moment of scrutiny. Under a disclosure rule, the question a court can put to you is narrow: did you say whether you used AI. Under a verification rule like Part 161, the question is broader and harder: can you show that the required review actually happened. The first is a statement. The second is a demonstration.
That difference has a direct operational consequence. A verification duty you can defend is one backed by a record of who checked the authorities in a filing, when, and against what. A verification duty you merely hope was satisfied is one you cannot reconstruct if a fabricated citation surfaces later. Part 161 attaches its duty to the signature and its enforcement to existing sanctions and candor rules [[2]](#ref-2), which means the useful mental model is not "did I sign" but "can I show the review if a court asks." The signature is the visible part. A retained verification record is what makes it defensible.
This is where the verify-first design rewards firms that treat verification as a producible artifact rather than a private habit. Our guide on [AI hallucinations in legal filings](https://rankshieldlegal.com/ai-hallucination-legal-filings/) covers why fabricated authorities slip through in the first place, and our overview of [AI legal citation checkers](https://rankshieldlegal.com/ai-legal-citation-checker/) compares the tooling that can run the underlying check. The rule does not tell you to buy any tool. It tells you the review must happen and, by signing, that you are representing it did.

## Where verification tends to break down under deadline
The duty Part 161 imposes is not complicated to describe, yet it fails in predictable ways. The failures are rarely a lawyer deciding not to check. They are the check being done unevenly under deadline pressure, or done once and then not repeated after a late edit introduces a new citation, or done by someone who confirms a case exists but not that it still holds what it is cited for. The failure modes are procedural, not moral, which is why a signed attestation alone does not prevent them.
Two checks are skipped more often than the rest. The first is confirming that a proposition is actually supported by the authority cited for it, not merely that the authority is real. A genuine case cited for something it does not hold is still a defective citation, and it is exactly the kind of defect a fluent AI draft can introduce. The second is confirming that the authority remains good law, because a case that was correct when decided may have been reversed, vacated, or superseded since. Both require going past the surface of the citation, which is the step that gets compressed when time is short.
Part 161 does not distinguish between a citation that was fabricated outright and one that was real but mis-cited; the duty is to confirm the filing contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material, and to review it carefully [[1]](#ref-1). In practice, that means the review has to catch both kinds of defect before the signature goes on the paper. A record that captures who checked these items and when is what lets a firm demonstrate the work was done rather than assumed.
A late edit that adds or changes a citation after the review pass is a common source of failure. Tie verification to the moment citations are finalized, and run it again on anything added afterward.

## Building an evidence record that survives a challenge
The through-line of a verify-first rule is evidence. If the obligation is to confirm a filing contains no fabricated authorities, and the enforcement is existing sanctions and candor rules, then the practical question is whether you can produce a reproducible check when a filing is questioned. This is the problem RankShield Legal is built to address. It certifies that cited authorities exist, are quoted accurately, and are good law, and it produces a verifiable record you can retain alongside a filing. It is a vendor tool that supports the verification duty; it is not legal advice and does not replace attorney judgment.
Mapped to Part 161, the "no fabricated cases or statutes" requirement is addressed by authority verification that confirms each cited decision is real; the accuracy of a citation by checking the reporter, volume, and page against the actual authority; the fidelity of a quotation by comparing the quoted language to the source; and the good-law question by validation against subsequent history that flags reversal, vacatur, or supersession. The output is an independently checkable record that every cited authority was resolved against live case law before filing. Our page on [citation certification](https://rankshieldlegal.com/citation-certification/) describes what that certificate contains and how a reviewer inspects it.
Two honesty points belong here, because this is where vendors tend to overreach. First, no tool makes a filing "hallucination-free," and none should claim to; what a check provides is an independent, reproducible pass that catches fabricated and mis-cited authorities before they reach a judge, plus a record you can produce. Second, the duty stays with the signer. Verification produces evidence that supports the attestation Part 161 attaches to your signature; it does not discharge it. The judgment about whether an authority genuinely supports the proposition it is cited for remains an attorney's to make.

- **Confirm existence** Verify that every cited case, statute, or authority is real, which is the core of the Part 161 "no fabricated or fictitious material" duty.
- **Confirm accuracy and support** Check that the citation is accurate, that any quotation is verbatim, and that the authority actually holds what it is cited for.
- **Confirm good law** Validate each authority against subsequent history to catch reversal, vacatur, or supersession before the paper is signed.
- **Retain the record** Keep a verifiable record of who checked what and when, so the review behind your signature can be shown if the filing is questioned.

## What this means for firms filing across state lines
A firm with matters in New York, Illinois, and various federal courts now faces three overlapping regimes at once: a system-wide New York rule, a statewide Illinois policy, and a shifting set of individual-judge standing orders in the federal system with no central registry. The disclosure triggers differ, the enforcement language differs, and the scope differs. Memorizing every variant is not a workable strategy, and assuming last quarter's process still fits this filing in this court is how firms get caught out.
The more durable answer is to build the process around what every one of these regimes is ultimately about: whether the authorities in a filing are real, accurately cited, and still good law. New York asks you to confirm no fabricated material [[1]](#ref-1). Illinois asks you to thoroughly review AI content and holds you accountable for the result [[3]](#ref-3) [[4]](#ref-4). Individual orders ask, in varying words, for verification and sometimes disclosure [[5]](#ref-5). A single verification step that runs on every cited authority satisfies the substance of all three, while a per-court check on the specific disclosure and wording requirements handles the parts that vary.
Built that way, the workflow does not depend on anyone remembering to be careful under deadline. It reads the governing rule or order for the court and judge, runs an independent check on every cited authority for existence, accuracy, quotation, support, and good-law status, records who verified and when, and retains a record that can be produced if the filing is questioned. That approach meets Part 161 today, aligns with the Illinois policy, and covers the standing-order obligations that apply in the meantime, without betting on any one regime staying still.
This article is informational and reflects the state of these rules as of July 2026. It is not legal advice. The author is RankShield Legal's founder, not an attorney. Consult a licensed attorney about the obligations that apply to your matter, and confirm the current text of any rule or order before relying on it.

Test yourself
## New York Part 161: a self-test
Four questions on what the rule requires and where the duty sits.

- 1 What does Part 161 primarily require? Disclosure that AI was used Independent human review confirming no fabricated cases, statutes, or material A separate AI certificate attached to every filing **Answer:** Independent human review confirming no fabricated cases, statutes, or material Part 161 permits AI, declines a system-wide disclosure requirement, and requires the filer to independently confirm the paper contains no fabricated or fictitious material.
- 2 Under Part 161, how is the verification attestation made? Through a separate disclosure box Through the ordinary signature on the filing Through an added filing fee **Answer:** Through the ordinary signature on the filing By signing, the filer certifies the required review was conducted. The ordinary signature carries the attestation.
- 3 How does Part 161 compare to the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy? Illinois requires disclosure; New York does not Both permit AI, decline mandatory disclosure, and put the weight on human review They take opposite approaches **Answer:** Both permit AI, decline mandatory disclosure, and put the weight on human review Illinois (effective January 1, 2025) and New York (effective June 1, 2026) both permit AI, decline mandatory disclosure, and hold users accountable for reviewing the work.
- 4 Does using a verification tool satisfy the Part 161 duty for you? Yes, it discharges the duty No, the duty stays with the signer; the tool provides supporting evidence Only if the tool is court-approved **Answer:** No, the duty stays with the signer; the tool provides supporting evidence Part 161 attaches the attestation to your signature. A tool supports the duty and produces a retainable record, but it does not replace attorney judgment.
Honest self-check. There is no sign-up, and nothing is stored.

Questions answered
## Straight answers to the common questions
The questions readers ask about this topic, answered directly. **No forms, no sales pitch.**

JAMIE KLONCZ · SEO AGENCY NAPLES ************** ONLINE
Pick a question on the left, or search above. You will get the direct answer, the way an answer engine would give it.

← PREV NEXT → [REQUEST ACCESS →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/contact/)

- **What does New York's Part 161 actually require?** 22 NYCRR Part 161, "Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology," permits attorneys and parties to use AI in preparing court papers and declines to impose a system-wide requirement to disclose that use. What it requires instead is human verification: any filer who uses an AI tool must carefully review the paper and independently confirm it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing the paper, the filer certifies that this review was conducted. The rule was adopted March 25, 2026 and took effect June 1, 2026, and it applies across the Unified Court System rather than in a single courtroom. Confirm the current rule text before relying on it, and consult a licensed attorney about your obligations.
- **Does Part 161 require me to disclose that I used AI?** No. Part 161 expressly declines to impose a system-wide requirement to disclose AI use in filings. The obligation it does impose is verification: confirm that the filing contains no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material, and by signing, certify that you carefully reviewed it. That said, individual New York courts may adopt the rule's optional model provision or their own requirements, so a specific judge could still ask for something more. The safe practice is to read the governing rule for your court and judge, and to treat the verification duty as the constant regardless of whether any disclosure is also required in that courtroom.
- **How is Part 161 enforced if a filing contains a fabricated citation?** Part 161 does not create a new penalty. It relies on enforcement tools New York courts already use. The optional model provision in the rule's appendix ties the certification to sanctions available under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and to the candor obligations of Rule 3.3. In practice, that means a filer who signs a paper containing fabricated authorities may face the same consequences that already attach to frivolous conduct and to breaches of the duty of candor to the court. Because the attestation is carried by your signature, the failure is attributable to the signer. Consult a licensed attorney about how these enforcement provisions could apply to a specific matter.
- **How does Part 161 compare to the Illinois AI policy?** They take a similar posture through different instruments. The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025, authorizes AI, states its use should not be discouraged, and does not require disclosure in filings. It holds users fully accountable for their final work product and requires them to thoroughly review AI-generated content before submission. New York's Part 161, effective June 1, 2026, likewise permits AI, declines mandatory disclosure, and requires the filer to confirm no fabricated material. Both systems put the weight on human review and accountability rather than on announcing tool use. The main difference is form: New York attaches the duty to the signature and to existing sanctions, while Illinois frames it as a policy of accountability across court users.
- **How many courts now have AI rules or orders for filings?** There is no official national count, because most of these obligations come from individual judges' standing orders rather than from any central registry. Public trackers maintained by law firms are the practical source, and one such tracker reports more than a hundred active court AI orders binding attorney filings as of 2026. Treat that figure as directional rather than exact. On top of the individual orders, system-wide and statewide rules now exist in places like New York, through Part 161, and Illinois, through its Supreme Court policy. The overall picture is a growing and uneven landscape, which is why reading the specific rule or order for your court and judge matters more than relying on any single count.
- **Does using a verification tool satisfy Part 161 for me?** No. Part 161 attaches the attestation to your signature, and the duty behind it stays with you. A verification tool can confirm that cited authorities exist, are quoted accurately, and remain good law, and it can produce a record you retain alongside the filing. That evidence supports the certification and makes it defensible by letting you show the review happened, but it does not replace the attorney's judgment about whether an authority genuinely supports the proposition it is cited for. No vendor makes filings "hallucination-free," and none should claim to. Treat a verification tool as an independent, reproducible check that supports the Part 161 duty, not as a substitute for it, and consult a licensed attorney about compliance in your matter.

## References

- New York State Unified Court System. 22 NYCRR Part 161, Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology. 2026. [https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology](https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology)
- New York State Bar Association. Effective June 1, 2026, The New York State Unified Court System Has Adopted a New Rule Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence. 2026. [https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/](https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/)
- State of Illinois, Office of the Illinois Courts. Illinois Supreme Court Announces Policy on Artificial Intelligence. 2024. [https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/](https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/)
- Illinois Supreme Court. Policy on Artificial Intelligence. 2025. [https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf](https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf)
- Ropes & Gray. Artificial Intelligence Court Order Tracker. 2026. [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker)

Written by
## [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)
Founder, RankShield
Jamie Kloncz is the founder of RankShield, the verifiable AI and quantum security platform behind RankShield Legal. An engineer by training, he built RankShield after his own devices and business were attacked, including an AI voice-cloning scam that targeted his family, on one conviction: unverifiable security is the real danger, so every consequential action should leave a receipt anyone can independently check.
[More about Jamie →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)

Try it · Free
## Check a citation against live case-law
Paste a citation from an AI-drafted brief and see whether the case actually exists, resolved against live case-law. Free, no sign-up. Then request early access to certify a full filing.
[Try the citation checker](https://rankshieldlegal.com/ai-legal-citation-checker/)

Keep reading
## Related guides
[Litigation & Evidence Federal judges are using AI: what bench-side adoption means for your filings Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/federal-judges-using-ai-what-it-means/)[Litigation & Evidence The First Federal Appeals Court AI Sanctions Precedent: What "Responsibility at the Point of Signing" Means Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/ninth-circuit-ai-sanctions-precedent/)[Litigation & Evidence AI restrictions in protective orders: the new e-discovery battleground Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/ai-restrictions-protective-orders-ediscovery/)