In courts where every word can decide a life, a new researcher sits beside the advocate: generative AI that promises faster research and sharper drafts. The hook is rapid, measurable gain: more efficient AI assisted legal research shortens long hours of sifting through briefs while keeping the pace of a busy docket. Yet a fog lingers. As speed grows the risk of AI hallucinations and accountability gaps rises, threatening the integrity of decisions and public trust in the judiciary. AI in the judiciary is not a sanitized tool it is a partner whose outputs demand human judgment and verification. Recent reporting shows judges experimenting with AI to speed up research and drafting even as they confront errors that resemble hallucinations. The Sedona Conference guidelines offer a cautious framework for safe uses of AI in legal work including research and creating preliminary transcripts while insisting on verification. "No known GenAI tools have fully resolved the hallucination problem." The payoff is seductive a faster workflow that could ease court congestion and sharpen analysis but the court system risks escalate if missteps are left unchecked. This tension invites a careful balance of speed with accountability. That balance leads us to the insight section.
Insight: Core argument and stakes
The central argument is that judges are trialing AI in the judiciary to accelerate research and drafting, yet the balance between machine assistance and human judgment remains fragile. The practical promise is measurable time savings and the potential to ease crowded dockets, but the costs are nontrivial: hallucinations, misidentifications, and accountability gaps that could erode public trust if left unchecked. The Sedona Conference guidelines published in February offer a cautious blueprint for safe AI use, identifying where AI can support a judge while emphasizing verification and human oversight. In this frame, AI in the judiciary is not a substitute for judgment but a tool that shifts workload and raises the stakes of every decision.
Time savings versus reliability: AI can perform initial research, draft summaries, and flag authorities faster than human analysts, producing meaningful reductions in time spent on routine tasks. Yet the gains are contingent on robust error checking and cross verification, because even small misreads can cascade into incorrect conclusions in a live ruling.
Accountability and trust: When outputs are translated into orders, the responsibility remains with the judge. The risk is higher if a court does not explain or relies on a generated citation without scrutiny. Rodriguez highlights the pressure, noting, "Both sides used AI tools, and both submitted filings that referenced made up cases." Goddard adds, "No known GenAI tools have fully resolved the hallucination problem." Solovey emphasizes, "The line between what is appropriate for a human judge to do versus what is appropriate for AI tools to do changes from judge to judge and from one scenario to the next."
Boundaries and governance: The Sedona guidelines stress verification, transparency, and clear boundaries for tasks such as research, transcript creation, and briefing review, reinforcing that human judgment remains essential. As a result, AI remains a risk management tool rather than a decision making engine.
Practical safeguards and stakes in practice: Real world incidents show how speed can be gained at the cost of accuracy when names and authorities are misrepresented, underscoring the need for guardrails, training, and ongoing oversight.
This synthesis sets the stage for the Evidence section, where concrete demonstrations and counterpoints will be weighed.
Data point: Nearly a quarter of civil cases in federal court involve at least one unrepresented party, elevating the stakes for precise AI assisted drafting and research within AI in the judiciary. When counsel is absent, the risk that AI generated misstatements or misinterpretations slip into filings increases, making verification and human oversight indispensable. This dynamic sits at the heart of the mainKeyword and its relatedKeywords as the judiciary weighs the benefits of generative AI while guarding against bias, error, and leakage of sensitive material. Xavier Rodriguez notes, “Both sides used AI tools, and both submitted filings that referenced made-up cases,” a stark reminder that even with speed gains the technology cannot replace careful judgment or robust verification in AI in the judiciary and the wider field of generative AI risk in courtrooms.
Data point: A federal judge in New Jersey had to reissue an order riddled with errors that may have come from AI, showing how even authoritative rulings can be compromised when machine aided drafting slips into courtroom documents. The scenario highlights the boundary between algorithmic assistance and legal accountability in the AI in the judiciary space. Scott Schlegel observes, “When the judge makes a mistake, that’s the law,” underscoring that responsibility remains with human actors even as AI contributes to decisions and drafts.
Data point: A judge in Mississippi refused to explain why his order contained mistakes that seemed like AI hallucinations, illustrating the opacity and accountability gaps that accompany decision making influenced by generative tools. Allison Goddard emphasizes the risk, saying, “I’m not going to be the judge that cites hallucinated cases and orders… it’s really embarrassing, very professionally embarrassing,” a candid warning about the professional costs of AI assisted errors in AI in the judiciary.
Data point: Sedona Conference guidelines published in February outline safe uses of AI for judges, including conducting legal research, creating preliminary transcripts, and searching briefings, while explicitly urging verification and human oversight to mitigate hallucinations. No known GenAI tools have fully resolved the hallucination problem, Solovey remarks, reinforcing the need for guardrails and ongoing evaluation within AI in the judiciary and its related workflows.
Data point: Xavier Rodriguez began learning about artificial intelligence in 2018, four years before the release of ChatGPT, illustrating a long arc of judicial exposure to AI and signaling how the AI in the judiciary field has evolved in step with advances in generative AI tools and access to legal data across platforms like Westlaw and Lexis.
Data point: The category of routine tasks for AI remains slippery to define; the line between machine friendly work and human judgment varies by judge, case, and jurisdiction, highlighting the need for explicit boundaries and accountability within AI in the judiciary as tasks shift from case summaries to timeline generation and case research that still requires human validation.
Data point: Real world incidents show the stakes in AI in the judiciary: a Georgia appellate court issued a partially AI backed order in June and a New Jersey federal judge withdrew an opinion in July due to hallucinations, pointing to ongoing accountability concerns. As Solovey warns, “If you’re making a decision on who gets the kids this weekend and somebody finds out you use Grok and you should have used Gemini or ChatGPT—you know, that’s not the justice system,” a reminder that public trust hinges on transparent and careful use of generative AI in the courtroom.
AI Tools in the Judiciary: Comparison
| Tool / Product | Primary Use in judiciary | Key Risks | Notable cautions | Example jurisdiction or context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | Legal research and drafting assistance, case law summarization, and brief drafting support | Hallucinations, inaccurate citations, data leakage, and overreliance on machine | Must verify outputs, avoid relying on outputs as final authority, require explicit sources and internal checks, maintain human oversight | Widely used in US federal and state contexts; notable incidents in New Jersey and Georgia illustrate risks |
| Claude | Drafting and research support partner for judges and clerks; used for analysis alongside other tools | Hallucinations, confidential data exposure, and limits on model authority | Verify results, avoid single tool dependence, enforce data governance and disclosure of limitations | Used in general judiciary contexts within US courts; Sedona Conference references caution around AI use |
| Grok | Timeline generation and case summarization; supports research with context aware memory | Hallucinations, misidentification of authorities, and leakage of confidential material | Use as a thought partner rather than decision maker; always cross check with traditional sources | Noted in exchanges about family and other sensitive cases; cautionary examples from US courts |
| Gemini | Drafting and preliminary analysis with improved reliability; supports broader AI workflows | Hallucinations, inconsistent outputs, and potential bias in outputs | Guardrails essential; verify outputs and use as supplement to human judgment | General US court contexts; used as alternative to before or alongside other tools |
Caption: AI in the judiciary: comparison across tools highlights usage, risks, and safeguards.
Payoff: Benefits and guardrails for AI in the judiciary
Adopting AI with guardrails yields tangible returns: faster access to authorities, more thorough briefing, and the capacity to devote human attention to tractable issues and complex reasoning. When grounded in strong safeguards, AI becomes a trusted partner that extends judicial capacity without eroding accountability. The Sedona Conference guidelines, published in February, provide a backbone for responsible AI use by outlining where AI can assist, how verification should occur, and why human oversight remains essential. Additional safeguards from professional bodies and risk management frameworks reinforce that AI should augment judgment rather than supplant it.
Benefits and rationales
Time savings and workload management: AI can perform initial legal research, draft preliminary summaries, and flag potentially relevant authorities, reducing routine burden and speeding up workflow.
Decision quality through augmentation: AI highlights gaps, suggests alternative authorities, and prompts careful consideration of competing interpretations, helping judges avoid tunnel vision.
Consistency and scope coverage: AI supports uniform application of thresholds, tests, and standards across similar cases, mitigating inadvertent omissions in analysis.
Access to justice improvements: By expediting routine tasks, courts can allocate more resources to public-facing services, freeing staff to assist unrepresented parties with appropriate guidance and information.
Educational value and culture shift: Exposure to AI assisted workflows can foster a culture of meticulous verification, data governance, and continuous learning about model limitations inside the judiciary.
Public trust through transparency: When guardrails are visible and outcomes are well explained, the public can see that AI acts as a rigorous check rather than a shortcut.
Concrete safety boundaries
Scope of use boundaries: Limit AI to non decisional support tasks such as legal research, citation verification, and drafting templates; explicitly prohibit automated decision making, order generation, or sentencing recommendations.
Data governance and source discipline: Use only approved sources; maintain separation between confidential material and external data; enforce data minimization and retention controls.
Transparency and disclosure: Require clear statements about AI contributions in documents and ensure the human author remains responsible for the final output.
Verification steps
Human verification of all AI produced materials by subject matter specialists.
Parallel verification: Cross check AI outputs using separate research methods and independent sources.
Version control and audit trails: Preserve a detailed record from input to final draft, including human edits and rationale for changes.
Accountability measures
Governing body oversight: A distinct committee sets policy, reviews incidents, and ensures ongoing compliance with Sedona guidelines and law.
Incident response protocol: A defined process to report, investigate, and remedy AI related errors.
Public reporting: Regular summaries of AI use, safeguards, and outcomes to sustain public confidence.
AI as a thoughtful partner
Used judiciously, AI offers a different lens on complex problems, helps surface overlooked authorities, and strengthens argument structure checks. It remains thoughtful collaboration that respects the primacy of human judgment and the public’s trust.
In a federal courtroom in New Jersey, Judge Mara Calderon sits before a glowing screen that glints with a list of authorities and a draft order she has yet to approve. The docket is heavy and the clock is merciless, but AI offers a way to sift through decades of precedents and generate a first pass at the order language. Calderon uses AI not to decide the case but to illuminate options, present authorities, and assemble a coherent narrative that will survive human scrutiny. The promise is tangible: time saved on routine drafting and a quick capture of potentially relevant authorities. Yet the courtroom habitus remains stubbornly human. Every paragraph is weighed against memory, instinct, and the obligation to explain every choice to lawyers who watch the process closely.
Behind the glass, the room holds more: Xavier Rodriguez, Erin Solovey, Allison Goddard, Scott Schlegel, and James O'Donnell. Rodriguez murmurs a reminder that frames the entire experiment: “Both sides used AI tools, and both submitted filings that referenced made-up cases.” The judge nods, recognizing that speed cannot substitute for verification. Solovey adds a warning that still hums in the edges of the workflow: “The line between what is appropriate for a human judge to do versus what is appropriate for AI tools to do changes from judge to judge and from one scenario to the next.” The words land as a practical checkpoint rather than a rhetorical flourish, a reminder that risk management cannot be outsourced to a machine.
The triumphs arrive in the margins. The AI flags statute gaps, proposes alternative authorities, and schedules a brief timeline so the judge can map potential outcomes before writing the order. In Mississippi and New Jersey alike, the same sentiment repeats: the tool is a thought partner, not a sovereign, and human verification remains non negotiable. Yet a moment of cognitive dissonance arrives when the draft cites a non existent case or misidentifies a party. Calderon catches the anomaly with a practiced eye, thinking of Solovey’s caution and of Goddard’s blunt confession: “I’m not going to be the judge that cites hallucinated cases and orders… it’s really embarrassing, very professionally embarrassing.”
When the mist clears, Calderon rewrites with disciplined care. She leaves in the structure that a court can follow, makes clear what the AI contributed, and inserts a concise explanation for every cited authority. The new draft respects the Sedona guidelines by confirming sources and recording the verification steps, even as it preserves the efficiency of the tool. James O'Donnell’s sense of the discipline rings true here: “When the judge makes a mistake, that’s the law.” The result is not a verdict merely aided by technology, but a carefully curated document that demonstrates how AI can support careful judgment while highlighting where the line must stay drawn.
No one leaves the courtroom convinced that machines have become the final arbiters. The real message is more somber and more hopeful: AI can accelerate and illuminate, but the responsibility to reason, explain, and defend remains squarely on human shoulders. And as the participants remind us, no known GenAI tools have fully resolved the hallucination problem, a boundary that every judge must respect as they shape the future of AI in the judiciary.
Guidelines: best practices checklist for judges using AI in the courtroom
This practical checklist is designed to help judges harness AI while maintaining accountability, accuracy, and public trust. It aligns with the Sedona Conference safeguards for responsible AI use and ties back to the article’s key findings about verification, transparency, and human judgment. Use these steps to define allowed tasks, verify results, document decisions, disclose AI contributions to parties, and conduct post use audits.
- Define allowed AI tasks
Identify which AI assisted activities are permitted in your workflow. Acceptable uses include legal research, extraction of relevant authorities, drafting neutral summaries, flagging potential authorities for review, and organizing citations or timelines. Prohibit automated decision making, order generation, or sentencing suggestions. Establish an explicit boundary between machine facilitated analysis and human responsibility. Consult the Sedona Conference safeguards that emphasize verification and human oversight and cite the guidelines on safe uses such as research and transcript preparation. Treat AI as a tool to augment judgment rather than a substitute for judicial reasoning.
- Verification and cross checking
Require multiple layers of verification for AI outputs. Cross check authorities and quotations against original sources in trusted databases such as Westlaw or Lexis and confirm that case names, dates, and jurisdictions are correct. Use independent research methods in parallel with AI outputs and maintain separate notes for each source. Maintain a habit of questioning surprising results and never treat a generated citation as final without human confirmation. This mirrors the article’s warnings about AI hallucinations and accountability gaps and reinforces that AI remains a support tool not a decision maker.
- Documentation and provenance
Document every AI assisted step in the case record. Record input prompts, the specific AI outputs consulted, sources used, and the human edits that occurred. Preserve version history and a clear rationale for changes, including why a particular authority was chosen or rejected. The Sedona safeguards advocate for transparent provenance so that judges can explain how AI contributed to the workflow and how human oversight shaped the final product. Thorough documentation underpins public trust and accountability.
- Transparency with parties
Disclose AI assistance to involved parties when relevant and allowed by court rule. Explain what the AI contributed, what was verified, and how the final decision or draft language was derived. Provide a concise statement of AI related safeguards in filings or orders. Transparency reduces perceived risk, helps unrepresented parties understand the process, and supports fairness by ensuring the record shows the human author’s responsibility for results.
- Post use auditing and incident response
Institute a post use review process to assess AI outputs after a decision or draft is public. Maintain an incident log of any errors, hallucinations, or boundary breaches and the corrective actions taken. Schedule periodic internal audits to evaluate adherence to Sedona safeguards, verify that control measures performed as intended, and update procedures based on lessons learned. Use findings to strengthen training, update prompts, and improve governance across chambers.
- Data governance and confidentiality
Limit AI access to approved data sources and ensure confidential material stays within trusted environments. Enforce data minimization, retention controls, and strict disclosure of any external data handling. Align with professional standards and court data governance policies to minimize leakage risk and preserve the integrity of sensitive materials.
- Training and accountability
Provide ongoing training for judges and court staff on AI capabilities, limitations, and risk management. Foster a culture of careful verification, critical thinking, and transparent accountability. Clarify responsibility for outputs, confirm how to escalate concerns, and ensure that the judiciary’s posture toward AI remains cautious and criterion based rather than experimental.
- Special considerations for unrepresented parties
When parties lack representation, ensure accessible explanations of AI assisted steps and maintain rigorous safeguards to prevent miscommunication. Provide clear guidance on how AI contributed without compromising the fairness of proceedings or the accuracy of citations. Public trust hinges on equitable access to information and robust verification across all cases.
- SEO and terminology notes
Main keyword: AI in the judiciary. Related keywords to weave into practice and documentation include generative AI, AI hallucinations, court room AI risk, Sedona Conference guidelines, AI assisted legal research, case summarization, timeline generation, AI in bail decisions, unrepresented parties in federal court, sanctions for AI mistakes, safety boundaries in AI use. Using these terms consistently helps indexing while preserving precision and clarity in the judiciary field.
- Final note
Judges who apply these best practices will benefit from improved efficiency without compromising accuracy or accountability. The approach mirrors the article’s emphasis on verification, transparency, and the indispensable role of human judgment in AI assisted workflows. This is how AI in the judiciary can be a thoughtful partner that strengthens public trust rather than eroding it.
Adoption data across jurisdictions
- National landscape
As of 2025, state court adoption of generative AI shows wide variation. A July 2025 Thomson Reuters Institute survey reports that about 17 percent of state courts are currently using generative AI, with another 17 percent planning adoption within the next year. In contrast, around 70 percent do not permit AI tools for court business, and roughly 75 percent have not provided formal AI training. These figures reflect a cautious, governance driven approach aimed at safeguarding accuracy and public trust. (Source: Thomson Reuters Institute; see https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/ai-in-courts/courts-staffing-crisis/)
- State policy experiments and notable adoption
California in mid 2025 moved to a formal rule on AI use in courts. The rule allows AI assistance with limits, and it signals that judges and lawyers must document AI contributions while facing sanctions for unfounded arguments. This illustrates a move toward clear guardrails rather than a free for all. (Source: Reuters; https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/california-court-system-adopts-rule-ai-use-2025-07-18/)
Illinois in December 2024 allowed judges and lawyers to use AI with safeguards, highlighting a trend toward permission with boundaries rather than prohibition. (Source: Reuters; https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/illinois-top-court-say-judges-lawyers-can-use-ai-with-limits-2024-12-19/)
- Jurisdictional themes and governance
Georgia and Arizona have established formal committees or steering groups to study AI impacts on evidence rules, procedures, and ethics, signaling a trend toward structured oversight as tools become more common. (Georgia: JDSupra; https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/state-courts-prepare-for-age-of-ai-6828067/; Arizona: AZCourts; https://www.azcourts.gov/cscommittees/Arizona-Steering-Committee-on-Artificial-Intelligence-and-the-Courts)
- Sanctions and accountability
Courts are already imposing sanctions for AI generated misstatements in filings, underscoring that AI outputs do not replace judicial accountability. (Clark County Bar Association; https://clarkcountybar.org/ai-generated-deficiencies-in-filings-sanctions-and-how-to-avoid-them/)
- Guidance and safeguards
The Sedona Conference issued guidelines in early 2024 emphasizing verification, transparency, and human oversight, and warning that no AI system has fully resolved hallucinations. (The Sedona Conference; https://www.thesedonaconference.org/Navigating_AI_in_the_Judiciary?utm_source=openai)
- Backdrop to adoption
Overall, court systems are balancing potential efficiency gains with risks of bias, privacy concerns, and reliability requiring robust training, clear task boundaries, and ongoing audits. For context on broader court activity and backlog, the Judicial Business reports provide baseline caseload statistics even as they do not track AI adoption per se. (U.S. Courts; https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/statistical-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts/judicial-business-2024?utm_source=openai)
SEO note Main keyword AI in the judiciary. Related keywords generative AI AI hallucinations court room AI risk Sedona guidelines AI assisted legal research sanctions for AI mistakes unrepresented parties in federal court.
Looking back across the arc of AI in the judiciary, a tone of cautious optimism remains warranted. Generative AI has demonstrated the capacity to speed routine research, organize vast materials, and surface authorities that might otherwise be overlooked. Yet speed must not outrun scrutiny. The real promise rests on guardrails that separate helpful assistance from decisive authority, on transparent processes that reveal how outputs were produced, and on accountable leadership that treats AI as a tool rather than a substitute for human judgment. As this article has shown, the hazards of hallucinations, miscitations, and opaque reasoning are not solved by bravado or secrecy. They are mitigated by explicit boundaries, rigorous verification, and ongoing evaluation. The Sedona Conference guidelines offer a practical blueprint for this approach, emphasizing verification, disclosure, and human oversight even as the tools evolve. Courts should routinely document AI contributions, maintain robust source discipline, and invite post use audits that reveal where safeguards succeeded or fell short. Judges, clerks, and staff must receive training that empowers them to challenge surprising results, cross check with trusted databases, and explain decisions in a manner that preserves public trust. The trajectory of adoption will be shaped by continuous learning, shared best practices, and the willingness to adjust rules as experience accumulates. The bottom line is both simple and demanding: AI can enhance judicial efficiency and consistency, but only when accompanied by steadfast accountability and a clear commitment to ongoing evaluation. When those guardrails are in place, AI becomes a thoughtful partner that augments deliberation rather than erodes it. The overarching takeaway for readers is bluntly practical: responsible AI in the judiciary requires governance that is transparent, adaptive, and anchored in human judgment. This aligns with the article arc and reinforces the SEO friendly theme of AI in the judiciary as a topic that demands careful stewardship as courts embrace technology without surrendering trust.
Meta Description
AI in the judiciary is reshaping how judges and clerks research, draft, and decide, yet the promise sits beside significant risks. This article takes a cautious, analytical look at early adoption of generative AI in the courtroom, examining how AI in the judiciary can accelerate legal research and drafting while exposing outputs to hallucinations, miscitations, and accountability gaps. We explore practical guardrails grounded in Sedona Conference guidelines for safe AI use, including verification, transparency, and human oversight, and we discuss how AI assisted legal research and case summarization can support decision making without supplanting human judgment. With concrete data points about unrepresented parties in federal court and the consequences of AI mistakes, the piece weighs the benefits against potential harms in courtroom AI risk. We also outline best practices to manage scope, data governance, and post use audits, ensuring responsible adoption of AI in the judiciary and preserving public trust.
AI in the judiciary: early adoption risks and guidelines
Understanding AI in the judiciary landscape
Generative AI in research and drafting
AI hallucinations and court room risk
Sedona Conference guidelines and guardrails
Adoption data and real world experiences with AI
Unrepresented parties in federal court and access to justice
Sanctions for AI mistakes in filings
Jurisdictional governance and policy experiments
Practical best practices for AI in the judiciary
AI assisted legal research workflows
Case summarization and timeline generation
Data governance and transparency
Monitoring, evaluation and future outlook
Post use audits and accountability
Public trust and governance
Written by the Emp0 Team (emp0.com)
Explore our workflows and automation tools to supercharge your business.
View our GitHub: github.com/Jharilela
Join us on Discord: jym.god
Contact us: tools@emp0.com
Automate your blog distribution across Twitter, Medium, Dev.to, and more with us.
Top comments (0)