Share this:

June 2026 Welcome Welcome to readers of Making the Connection!    In this issue, you will find:  In Focus : New York Courts Issue Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology Question of the Month, on conflict metaphors Case on Point, discussing the consequences of perjury in an arbitration At the Podium, listing my speaking engagements and public appearances In Focus New York Courts Issue Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers in conducting legal research and generating briefs and other court filings has received a lot of attention. Occasionally, AI results include imaginary cases, or misinterpret the cases or statutes discussed. Lawyers who have included such fictitious results in court filings have been disciplined. Some courts have implemented rules prohibiting the use of AI, requiring that the use of AI in preparing court filings be affirmatively disclosed, or requiring certification that AI results have been verified.  An appellate court has even chastised opposing counsel for not identifying and bringing to its attention the inclusion of such AI hallucinations in a party's brief. Recently, the New York Unified Court System issued a policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence. New York's policy neither prohibits nor requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court submissions, but observes that such submissions must comply with applicable professional standards. In relevant part, the Rules of Professional Conduct include standards requiring diligence, candor and appropriate supervision of legal staff members.  Since courts in New York can and often do issue their own rules, the policy also includes a suggested model rule.  The model rule states in relevant part: "by signing a paper and submitting it to this court, an attorney or party certifies that the paper does not contain any false material factual statement or any frivolous legal argument. . . . [A]ny attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool . . .  is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content." Question of the Month This month's question was posted by a colleague on LinkedIn:  Q: What’s your favorite conflict metaphor? A: Conflict is like a ball of yarn. You never know what strand to pull to unravel it, and pulling on other strands can cause it to become more tightly wound. Case On Point Eletson v. Levona Holdings (U.S. D. Ct. for the S.D.N.Y. 2026) Respondent Levona Holdings moved to vacate an arbitral award.  After the award was issued, Levona learned of documentary evidence that should have but was not produced in the arbitration proceeding that showed that its adversary's witnesses had lied. The court granted the motion, relying on the provision in the Federal Arbitration Act requiring vacatur "where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means." To obtain vacatur, the moving party must  "show (1) the existence of 'fraudulent activity'; (2) that, 'even with the exercise of due diligence,' he 'could not have discovered the fraud prior to the award issuing'; and (3) that 'the fraud materially related to an issue in the arbitration.'" At the Podium This is a listing of speaking engagements, workshops, events and other public appearances.  To book me as a speaker or facilitator at your next company, client or association function, contact me at lisa@lisapom.com.          On October 23, 2026, I will speak on Building Cultural Flexibility to Negotiate in Diverse Settings at the Colorado Bar Association's 20th Annual ADR Conference .      © 2026, Lisa Renee Pomerantz. All rights reserved.

email marketing by Lighthaus Design powered by

Subscribe to our email list.