- Transparency Fears: Some argue the rule should mandate disclosure of any AI use, not just full-AI outputs.
- Uniformity Concerns: The California Employment Lawyers Association, among others, pushed for a single statewide standard, fearing a patchwork of local rules will cause confusion and unfairness for litigants across counties.
- Job Loss & Deskilling: Unions and public commenters highlight the threat of automating critical court jobs, warning that “replacing skilled staff with automated tools…risks eroding the quality and empathy of court services.”
The Judicial Council’s response: ongoing education, phased implementation, and continued consultation with technologists, legal ethicists, and the public.
Broader Implications: Setting the National Tone
As the first U.S. court system to codify AI use, California is shaping the national debate over how far automation should go in the “people’s court.” With federal courts, other states, and legal tech companies watching closely, the state’s experience will likely influence new rules on AI disclosure, confidentiality, and fairness across America.
Some see this as a first draft—one that will require constant updates as both risks and technology evolve. As the Judicial Council notes, “Creating rules and standards to address emerging technology is challenging because those rules might become outdated, restrict innovation, or inadvertently exclude additional technologies posing the same risks the rules are meant to address.”
What Happens Next?
