- Compliance and Oversight
All AI use must comply with existing laws, ethical codes, and professional standards. Courts may go further, imposing stricter rules or outright bans at their discretion.
Judicial Officers and AI: Human Judgment Still Required
Standard 10.80 clarifies that for tasks “within their adjudicative role” (i.e., deciding cases, drafting opinions), judges are given strong guidance but not outright mandates. Judges “should not” enter confidential data into public AI, “should take reasonable steps” to ensure accuracy and remove bias, and “should consider” disclosure when using AI to produce public content. Notably, the standard stops short of prohibiting judges from using AI for legal research or drafting—but reminds them to uphold all ethical and statutory duties, and to never abdicate personal decision-making.
Mixed Reactions: Applause, Alarm, and National Ripples
Supporters say the rules strike a pragmatic balance—allowing courts to experiment and innovate, but requiring clear safeguards to protect privacy and prevent injustice. The Task Force emphasizes that flexibility is key: “Courts are in the best position to determine how it can meet rule 10.430’s requirements and whether its generative AI use policy should be more restrictive or detailed than the rule.”
Critics—including advocacy groups, and some judges—warn that the policy is either too permissive or too fragmented. Notable objections include:
