Judges explore Artificial Intelligence but keep decision-making human – The Florida Bar
Florida Bar News
Judges explore Artificial Intelligence but keep decision-making human
Oct 22, 2026Senior EditorTop Stories
National Center for State Courts survey of judges in 10 states finds AI used for tasks ranging from administrative work to oral argument preparation
Judges across the country are cautiously exploring the benefits of AI, including one who uses a “brainstorm buddy” to develop questions for oral argument, a National Center for State Courts report shows.
The March report is based on surveys of state and federal judges in 10 states and shows that early adopters were using the tech in a variety of ways – but not for “judicial decision making.”
“There was unanimous consensus among the judges that, regardless of how they are using GenAI, judges must always remain ‘the deciders’ who determine the ultimate outcome of any legal decision before them,” the report stresses.
Sponsored by the AI Policy Consortium for Law & Courts, a partnership between NCSC and the Thomson Reuters Institute, the survey is based on 13 interviews that were conducted last fall.
Researchers granted judges anonymity to encourage participation, and the report also does not name the states.
In addition to Chat GPT and Claude, judges listed a handful of models, including Gemini, Grok, HeyGen, Lexis AI Tools, Perplexity, Syno AI, Westlaw/CoCounsel, and “other bespoke court AI tools.”
Judges cited efficiency as a primary reason to use AI, and some were excited about the potential to improve access to justice. Several identified projects their court systems are considering, including AI-powered platforms to help self-represented litigants fill out court forms.
Every judge was aware of the risk of hallucinations, and some reported requiring their law clerks to sign “acceptable use” agreements.
Most judges reported using AI tools for “low risk” administrative chores.
“For example, judges discussed using GenAI tools to help plan continuing legal education (CLE) events, to generate ideas or have assistance with drafting speeches, to help plan or update court personnel trainings, and to help create presentation aids, such as slide decks.”
Some judges used AI for tasks more associated with traditional judging, including “editorial assistance” with written work, such as summarizing long documents.
“For example, some use the technology to create summaries of filings in preparation of oral arguments to help generate questions to ask, or to help generate a list of disputed and undisputed facts,” the report notes. The same judges, however, were careful to stress the importance of verifying the summaries, the report states.
At least one judge considered the possibility of using GenAI to help create the first drafts of opinions, “but only when the judge has already independently determined the outcome,” the report states.
Most judges who experimented with using AI for legal research reported getting back a hallucinated case, the researchers noted.
“As one judge described it, when using GenAI tools to conduct legal research, sometimes you find a needle in a haystack and other times, it’s a swing and a miss.”
Judges told researchers they were concerned about how the public would view their use of AI tools, but some also cited the potential to enhance communication with lawyers and the public.
One judge suggested using AI to summarize appellate court decisions “at a layperson’s reading level, which the judge could then edit and modify before sharing.”
And at least one court system is using AI to revise court rules to “improve their overall readability,” and other judges “are exploring the possibility of using GenAI to facilitate automatic and retroactive sealing and expungement policies,” the report notes.
When it comes to future use, some judges said they would appreciate more “practical training in prompt engineering and how best to spot hallucinations and errors,” the report notes.
While some judges were excited about increasing access to justices, at least one judge blamed the technology for “dramatic increases” in self-represented litigants and their filings.
“The concern is that litigants might have more access to the court, but not access to justice, if such filings overwhelm the system.”
Search News Archives
Sections
Disciplinary Actions
News and Notes
On the Move
In Memoriam
Letters
Errata
Announcements
Attorneys Exchange
Classified Ads
News in Photos
