AI Rules for Pennsylvania Law Firms
Last verified July 8, 2026
Pennsylvania's governing AI guidance for attorneys comes from a joint bar opinion rather than a court rule, but it carries real obligations around competence, confidentiality, and verification. Two new criminal statutes touching AI-generated content have also broadened exposure for firms well beyond criminal practice. A managing partner here is likely fielding client and carrier questions about how the firm supervises AI use and where the new criminal exposure sits.
Where Pennsylvania Stands
The operative statewide guidance is the PBA and Philadelphia Bar Association's Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, adopted May 22, 2024. It requires your firm to be competent with any AI tool it uses, communicate with clients about material AI use, safeguard confidential data before it enters an AI system, verify all AI-generated citations and content, and disclose AI use in court submissions wherever a court rule or order requires it. There is no standalone Pennsylvania court rule on attorney AI use yet, so this opinion functions as the primary standard your firm operates under.
What Your Firm Must Do
Formal Opinion 2024-200 sets the practical checklist: verify output before it goes anywhere near a filing or a client, keep confidential information out of AI systems that haven't been vetted, and tell clients when AI use is material to their matter. None of this is optional guidance dressed up as advice, it is the ethics standard your firm is measured against.
Malpractice and Carrier Considerations
Two new criminal statutes widen the practical risk landscape around AI even for firms that don't touch criminal law directly. Act 125 of 2024, signed October 29, 2024, criminalizes AI-generated child sexual abuse material and nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images, creating downstream civil and prosecutorial matters for criminal, family, education, and employment practices. Act 35 of 2025, effective September 5, 2025, creates a third-degree felony for digital forgery, meaning the creation or distribution of an AI-forged likeness passed off as genuine with intent to defraud or injure. That statute matters directly for fraud, defamation, and business tort practices, and for any matter where your firm is authenticating audio or video evidence.
What's Still Pending
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel, ordered September 9, 2025 and effective December 8, 2025, binds judges and court staff, not attorneys. It requires human review of all generative AI output and restricts use to approved, secured tools. It doesn't create obligations for your firm directly, but it signals that the Supreme Court's AI Advisory Committee may propose attorney-facing rules next, so firms should watch for a disclosure requirement similar to what other states have already adopted.
Prefer to talk it through?
Get a free consultation from an AI chief of staff.
A 30-minute call. Get a clear read on what Pennsylvania's rules mean for your firm and what to do first.
Book a Free ConsultationThis page covers Pennsylvania law. The free assessment scores your specific firm across five domains in one minute.