Court Denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in a Case Involving a Plaintiff from a Foreign Country

In the case of Charles v. QVC, Inc., No. 24-6703 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2025 Savage, J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a case involving a jurisdictional and/or venue issues in a case involving a Plaintiff who was a resident of a foreign country and who was injured in her home country of Trinidad.

This matter arose out of an incident during which a pressure cooker that the Plaintiff had purchased exploded while the Plaintiff was using it.    

The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.

The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.

More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.

The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.

Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.

The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.

Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.

The court in this matter ruled, after careful consideration of the private and public interest factors, that litigating this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would not result in oppression and vexation to the defendants out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience. As such, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Eastern District Court Transfers Tioga County MVA Case to Middle District Court Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Woodward v. General Motors, LLC, No. 2:25-CV-00605-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2025 Wolson, J.), the Eastern Federal District Court in Philadelphia granted a Motion to Transfer the case to the Middle District Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

In this case, the Plaintiff's decedent's fatal motor vehicle accident involved occurred in rural Tioga County, which is located in the Middle District Court's jurisdiction.  In part the Plaintiff's estate stated a crashworthiness products liability claim.

The court noted that, while the Plaintiff would prefer to litigate the case in the Eastern District, all other relevant factors favored the transfer of the case to the district where the accident happened.

The court additionally noted that any claims sounding in product liability are deemed to arise where the product was utilized and where the injury occurred.

In this matter, the court noted that the site of the accident, the relevant evidence, and the important witnesses were all located outside of the Eastern District.

As such, the Court granted General Motors' motion to transfer the case.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo from Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts website.

Philadelphia Trial Court Rules in Favor of Transfer of Med Mal Case to New Jersey Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Duxbury v. Reconstructive Orthopedic Assoc., June Term, 2023 No. 1031 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 10, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of its decision to transfer this medical malpractice case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Plaintiffs sued the medical Defendants for professional liability arising out of alleged negligence in the treatment of the Plaintiff’s complaints of back pain.

The trial court noted that it had ruled in this fashion where weighted reasons supported the dismissal of this Philadelphia County case and the re-filing of the action in New Jersey, which was where the Plaintiff received medical treatment and where the Plaintiff’s medical providers, medical records, and most potential witnesses were located.

While certain Defendants had their principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, and while one of the Defendant physicians was licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and had certain other connections to the state of Pennsylvania, the court found that other factors weighed more heavily in the decision to dismiss the matter and ordered that the case to be refiled in New Jersey.

The trial court noted that it had granted the Defendant’s motion and directed that the action refiled in New Jersey.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court Order dismissing the matter under the doctrine forum non conveniens.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 30, 2025).

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Gravenor-Reuter v. Acme Markets, Inc., No. 580 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. March 11, 2025 Dubow, J., King, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved Plaintiffs, who are residents of Delaware, from bringing a lawsuit in Philadelphia County regarding a slip and fall incident that happened in Delaware. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s medical care occurred in Delaware.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that Delaware is an available alternative forum for the Plaintiffs in this matter. The court also ruled that the Plaintiff’s choice of forum received less deference when the Plaintiff had chosen forum that is foreign to where the case can be brought.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff offered no evidence that any corporate decisions made by the Defendant, which was headquartered elsewhere in Pennsylvania, played any role in the incident that lead to the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court’s decision dismissing the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not an abuse of discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for brining this case to my attention.

Court Rejects Forum Non Conveniens Argument Relative to Claims Arising Out of a Stay at a Mexican Resort

In the case of Dent v. Amresorts, L.P., No. 2:24-CV-06354-MAK (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2025 Kearney, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss a wrongful death claim arising out of a Plaintiff’s death at an all-inclusive resort in Mexico. The Plaintiffs sued the United States owners and managers of the all-inclusive resort for their negligence in ensuring the safety of their guest.

According to the Opinion, prior to traveling to the all-inclusive resort in Mexico owned and operated by the American Defendants, the Plaintiffs allegedly contacted the resort to inquire about its medical services. According to the Plaintiffs, the resort represented that it had a doctor available 24-hours a day, an ambulance located on site, and a staff that was certified in CPR. The resort also claimed that it was located thirty (30) minutes away from the cities of Cancun and Playa del Carmen.

While visiting the resort, the Plaintiff’s husband began to complain of chest pains and requested aspirin. The Plaintiff went to the resort’s clinic and was notified by the on-site physician that the resort did not have any aspirin. The physician went to the Plaintiff’s room and diagnosed the husband as suffering a heart attack. The physician arranged for an ambulance that arrived thirty (30) minutes later.

The ambulance then took the Plaintiff’s husband to a private hospital an hour away.

Then, the hospital staff at that hospital demanded that the Plaintiff pay $3,000.00 for her husband to even enter the hospital. The hospital then demanded $41,000.00 to provide medical care and refused to treat the Plaintiff’s husband until that amount was paid. That hospital also refused to transfer the Plaintiff’s husband to a public hospital.

While trying to arrange a wire transfer for the $41,000.00, the Plaintiff’s husband passed away.

The hospital in Mexico then refused to release the Plaintiff’s husband’s body until the Plaintiff paid the $41,000.00 that was demanded. According to the Opinion, that Mexico hospital later billed the Plaintiff’s health insurance company over a $100,000.00 for services that was not performed.

The Plaintiff sued the American Defendants in this case for negligent medical assistance. The Plaintiff more specifically alleged that the Defendants negligently failed to have aspirin or an ambulance on site and negligently transported her husband to a private hospital further away from the public hospitals that were presumably located in Cancun or Playa de Carmen.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the American Defendants knew or should have known that the private hospital would charge guests exorbitant fees before agreeing to render medical care. There were further allegations that the American Defendants profited by sending guests to the hospital that the Plaintiff’s husband was sent to.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to name necessary parties, including hotel manager, the on-site physician, the ambulance company, the EMTs, and the private hospital and its staff.

The Defendants further sought to dismiss the case under a forum non conveniens argument, arguing that the case would be more appropriately heard in Mexico.

The court denied that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and found that the Plaintiff did not fail to join indispensable parties. The court found that the parties suggested by the named Defendants were not necessary to resolve the Plaintiff’s claims and that the Defendants did not provide any explanation as to why those other proposed Defendants would be required to be a part of this case.

The court additionally emphasized that the Plaintiff was not alleging a medical negligence claim but rather, was focusing on an alleged managerial and supervisory negligence claims unrelated to the private hospital’s medical care.

The court further held that the Defendants had failed to show why the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court found that the Defendants did not demonstrate the availability of an alternative forum as they had not shown that they were subject to service of process in Mexico or that they would consent to settle service.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 20, 2025).

THE 2024 TORT TALK TOP TEN

THE 2024 TORT TALK TOP TEN

10.  Waiting On Supreme Court Decision Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

Civil litigators are awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relative to the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., 303 A.3d 1070 (Pa. Super. 2023) appeal granted 367 EAL 2023 (Pa. 2024). 

At the Superior Court level, that Court had ruled Defendant did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to support the request for a transfer of venue under doctrine of forum non conveniens in an effort to move the case out of Philadelphia County.  The Court ruled, in part, that the affidavits provided by the defense from witnesses regarding whether or not Philadelphia County was an oppressive or vexatious venue from the perspective of those witnesses were not specific enough.

The primary issue for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide is whether the Superior Court misapplied Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.

The Tort Talk post on the Superior Court’s decision in this case can be reviewed at this LINK.

9.  Supreme Court Addresses Business Interruption Coverage in Context of Covid-19 Shutdown

In the case of Ungarean v. CNA, No. 12 WAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 26, 2024) (Op. by Brobson, J.), the court addressed issues regarding business interruption coverage in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This case involved a class action that was led by a dental practice which had purchased a commercial property insurance policy from an insurance company, which policy was intended to cover business-related losses.

After the court mandated closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the insured filed a claim under the policy, which was denied by the insurance company on the grounds that there was no physical damage to the property.

The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the insureds. The trial court had interpreted the policy language to include loss of use of the property as a form of “direct physical loss.”

That trial court decision was affirmed by the Superior Court who also found the policy language at issue was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured.

However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the policy language was unambiguous and required a physical alteration to the insured’s property for the coverage to apply.

The court ruled that the economic losses sustained by the insured due to the government shutdown did not meet this requirement.

As such, the Supreme Court ruled that the insured was not entitled to coverage under the policy. The case was remanded to the Superior Court with instructions for summary judgment to be entered in favor of the insurance company.

The Tort Talk post on this case can be viewed at this LINK.

8. Plaintiff Can Secure Both Punitive Damages and Treble Damages in the Same Case Punitive and Treble Damages

In the case of Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial, No. 2 WAP 2023 (Pa. April 25, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a trial court may, under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), award both punitive damages and treble damages.

This case involved Plaintiffs who sued Ameriprise Financial for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation relative to a life insurance policy. The Plaintiffs alleged that the carrier misrepresented to them that their quarterly premium payments would remain the same for the life of the policy. In reality, if the Plaintiff’s premium payment had remained the same, the policy would have allegedly lapsed for insufficient funds in 2020.

The Supreme Court held that treble damages under the UTPCPL are a separate remedy available to the Plaintiffs and must be considered by the trial court without regard to a separate punitive damages award that may be issued on related common law claims.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that nullifying the availability of a statutory award because of a common law award was not a permissible exercise of discretion by the trial court.

The Tort Talk Blog post on this case, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed at this LINK.

7. Plaintiff Must Answer Questions at IME or DME

In the Monroe County case of Nelson v. Wilkins, No. 1381-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 26, 2024 C. Daniel Higgins, Jr., J.) from earlier this year, the court granted a defendant’s Motion to Compel a plaintiff to provide information to the IME doctor during an independent medical examination of a plaintiff in a case arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

According to the decision, the plaintiff had appeared for an examination but refused to answer the IME doctor’s questions, asserting that the questions were allegedly outside the scope of Pa. R.C.P. 4010 about the occurrence of the accident that led to the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Judge C. Daniel Higgins, Jr. of Monroe County noted that Rule 4010 provides that the examiner is limited to inquiring into matters regarding the facts of liability that were germane to the issue of damages.  Rule 4010 itself provides that “[t]he examiner's oral interrogation of the person to be examined shall be limited to matters specifically relevant to the scope of the examination.”  See Pa.R.C.P. 4010(a)(4)(i).

The court found that the plaintiff’s attorney’s position that the IME doctor should not ask questions regarding the history of the accident that could relate to liability and the plaintiff’s argument that the doctor could avoid the problem by reviewing depositions, police reports, Interrogatories, and other discovery materials “was untenable” because it placed too high of a burden on the examining doctor.

In granting the defendant’s Motion to Compel in this regard, the Court ordered that the plaintiff was required to cooperate and answer the questions of the examining doctor.  The court noted that, as set forth under Rule 4010, the plaintiff could have her counsel or other representative present during the examination.

The Tort Talk Blog post, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed HERE.

6. Hills and Ridges Doctrine

Over the past year, one court addressed the issue of whether the Hills and Ridges Doctrine should be applied where a Plaintiff fell in an area that was covered by an awning or a canopy.

In the case of Johnson v. Harris-Dent, No. 23-00,097 (C.P. Lyc. Co. July 8, 2024 Linhardt, J.), Judge Eric R. Linhardt denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case that occurred when the plaintiff allegedly slipped on alleged black ice that was allegedly located on the top step of a homeowner's porch that was covered by an awning.

In this case, the Plaintiff had cited to the case of Heasley v. Carter Lumber, 843 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2004) for the proposition that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine is not applicable where the incident occurred in an area that was covered by a roof or awning.  In the Heasley case, the plaintiff’s slip and fall occurred while the Plaintiff was walking in a shed that had three walls, with the fourth side open.  The shed had an overhead roof with an awning extending from it. In that case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine did not apply to a fall occurring inside an outdoor storage shed. 

The Court in Heasley reasoned that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine was intended to protect property owners from an undue burden of ensuring that open spaces such as sidewalks and parking lots are constantly kept clear of snow and ice.  The court found that the defendant did not present anything that demonstrated that keeping a structure, which is only partially open to the elements, free of snow and ice presented any burden at all, let alone an undue burden on its owners. The Heasley court also indicated that the extension of the Hills and Ridges doctrine to structures and/or other partially opened areas would raise many difficult questions. As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the Heasley case declined to extend the application of the Hills and Ridges Doctrine to an incident that occurred in a structure covered by a roof and/or an awning.

Judge Linhardt applied the rationale of the Heasley case to this Johnson case in which the plaintiff alleged that he fell on black ice on the top step of the Defendant’s covered porch which step was allegedly covered by an awning. Judge Linhardt noted that, under the current status of Pennsylvania law, if that allegation was proven, then it appeared that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine would not be applicable to this litigation. The court therefore found that genuine issues of material fact must be resolved by the jury in this regard and, as such, the Defendant’sMotion for Summary Judgment was denied.

The Tort Talk Blog post on this case, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed at this LINK.

5. Notable Decisions on Certificates of Merit in Med Mal Cases

There were a couple of decisions of note that came down over the past year regarding Certificates of Merit that are required in medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania.

In the case of Rightmyer v. Philly Pregnancy Center, P.C., No. 23-1925 (E.D. Pa. March 1, 2024 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after confirming that the Certificate of Merit requirements for medical malpractice claims under Pennsylvania state law also apply in federal court.  In this case, the court also ruled that a nurse is not qualified to execute a required Pennsylvania Certificate of Merit in a medical malpractice action against a medical doctor.

The Tort Talk Blog post, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed HERE.

In the separate case of Berk v. Rothman Institute Orthopedic Foundation, No. 23-1437 (E.D. Pa. March 28, 2024 Murphy, J.), the court addressed the extent to which a plaintiff could attempt to compel one of the plaintiff’s own doctors to write a Certificate of Merit to enable the plaintiff to pursue a claim against another medical provider.

The court in Berk granted the doctors' Motion to Dismiss after finding that treating physicians do not owe their patients any fiduciary duty to provide them with a Certificate of Merit that would allow the patient to sue other doctors for medical malpractice.  The rationale for this decision was, in part, the general rule that potential experts may not be compelled to issue expert opinions against their will.

The court otherwise found that there is no valid cause of action for an alleged intentional deprivation of legal recourse for an alleged injury.

The Tort Talk Blog post, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed at this LINK.

4. Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements

A common dispute at civil litigation trials is the extent to which one party or the other may utilize demonstrative exhibits during the course of Opening Statements.  Typically, trial court judges have punted on the issues and have stated that such exhibits would only be permitted during Opening Statements if the attorneys have agreed on the same.

In what appears to be the first Opinion of its kind, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed the issue of whether a party may utilize demonstrative exhibits during an Opening Statement in the case of Webb v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2021-CV-4073 (Lacka. Co. March 8, 2024 Nealon, J.).  In this decision, Judge Nealon provided a thorough analysis of the law applicable to the reference to admissible evidence during the course of an Opening Statement at a civil litigation trial.

In this medical malpractice case, the Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine seeking leave of court to utilize admissible excerpts of videotaped depositions of unidentified defense witnesses during the course of the Opening Statement to be presented by Plaintiff’s counsel.

After reviewing the sparse law on the issue, Judge Nealon noted that the reference and showing of admissible evidence during the course of an Opening Statement can be permitted by a trial court judge under the broad discretionary powers of judges to run trials that occur before them.  

The court otherwise ordered the Plaintiff to identify which portions of what video deposition they intend to utilize during the course of the Opening Statement so that the opposing party could assert any reserved evidentiary objections to those excerpts so that any required rulings may be made prior to the Opening Statement.

The Tort Talk Blog post, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed LINK.

3. Service of Process

Over the past year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided its latest guidance on the issue of proper and timely service of process in civil litigation matters.  In the case of Ferraro v. Patterson-Erie, No. 1 WAP 2023 (Pa. April 25, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a statute of limitations argument related to service of process issues in a slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a slip and fall event.  The Plaintiff filed her Complaint within the two (2) year statute of limitations. However, the Plaintiff encountered difficulties with serving the Complaint on the Defendants due to issues with the Sheriff’s service and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff thereafter served the Complaint on the Defendant through a private process server. She later reinstated the Complaint and then served it through the Sheriff.  However, this service by the Sheriff occurred after the statute of limitations had elapsed.

The Defendants argued that the action was barred by the statute of limitations because the Plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to serve them in a timely manner.

On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she made a good faith effort in diligently and timely serving process on the Defendants.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the Defendants’ informal receipt of actual notice was irrelevant.  In the end, the case was dismissed.

Check out Justice Wecht’s Dissenting Opinion in this case for an excellent overview on the current status of the law in Pennsylvania on the issue of proper service of process.

The Tort Talk Blog post on this case, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed at this LINK.

2. Regular Use Exclusion Upheld as Valid and Enforceable

At the start of the year, on January 29, 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its long-awaited, much anticipated decision in the Regular Use Exclusion case of Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 77 MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024)(Maj. Op. by Donohue, J.)(Concurring Op. by Wecht, J.).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that, as presented in this case, the Regular Use Exclusion contained in motor vehicle insurance policies did not violate the express language of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [MVFRL].

The Plaintiff in Rush was a police officer who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving his police vehicle. The Plaintiff recovered the liability limits from the tortfeasor's policy and the UIM limits on the police vehicle.  The Plaintiff then sought to obtain additional recoveries from the Erie Insurance policies that covered his personal vehicles at home.  Erie Insurance relied upon a Regular Use Exclusion contained in the policy to deny coverage on the UIM claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and upheld the validity and enforceability of the Regular Use Exclusion.

In this Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court once again confirmed that it had previously clarified and narrowly limited its Gallagher decision in its decision in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione.  In Mione, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the Household Exclusion remained valid and applicable except possibly in cases where the insured was attempting to stack coverage under 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1738.

The Supreme Court in Rush also specifically held that the Regular Use Exclusion remained a permissible limitation of UIM coverage within the language of the MVFRL and that, "[w]ith decades of reliance by insureds and insurers, and no justification to allow this Court to depart from decades of established law," the Court would maintain its continued course on this issue "unless and until the General Assembly or the Insurance Department acts in a way that would suggest we do otherwise." Ultimately, the Supreme Court overruled the lower court decisions and held that the Regular Use Exclusion remained valid and enforceable.

The Tort Talk Blog post on this case, which contains a link to this decision, can be viewed at this LINK.

1. The Use of AI to Draft Court Filings

Over the past year, the trending use of AI has apparently hit the legal field with attorneys utilizing AI to draft motions and briefs to be filed with the courts.  This has led to bar associations and courts in Pennsylvania taking steps to provide guidance on the proper and responsible use of AI in this regard. 

In May of this year, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a Joint Formal Opinion providing advice on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the legal profession.  That Joint Formal Opinion can be viewed at this LINK.

The Opinion itself notes that it is an "advisory only" Opinion.  Generally speaking, the Opinion recommends that attorneys be aware of, and competent with, the use of AI in the legal profession.  The Opinion recommends that those in the legal profession check and confirm the veracity of all information generated through the use of AI, including citations to legal authority.  The Opinion also cautions that client confidentiality should be protected at all times.

In terms of steps being taken by the courts of Pennsylvania to monitor the use of AI with court filings, in the federal courts of Pennsylvania, Middle District Court Judge Karoline Mehalchick crafted and issued what appears to be the first Civil Practice Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence to be issued in the Commonwealth. 

Under this Order, which can be viewed at this LINK, Judge Mehalchick ordered that if a party to any litigation pending before her has utilized AI in preparation of any filing, that filing must be accompanied with a Certificate of Use of Generative AI.

In that Certificate of Use of Generative AI, the party is required to disclose and certify the following information:

(1) The specific AI tool utilized

(2) Identification of the portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and

(3) Certification that a person filing the document has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority

In the Order, Judge Mehalchick cautioned that failure to comply with this Civil Practice Order could result in sanctions.

At the state court level, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has created an Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence.  That Committee was created to propose appropriate statewide rules to provide guidance to counsel on the use of AI with filings in the state court systems.

Source of above image: Photo by Sergei Starostin on www.pexels.com.