Judges’ AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in Courts

When questioned by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee over a flawed June opinion, a federal judge blamed an intern’s use of generative AI for the error and banned use of the technology in his chambers. Other judges and law school professors say more can be gained by embracing the ubiquitous technology.

New Jersey US District Court Judge Julien Neals’ October response to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) letter dismayed AI proponents. The Biden appointee banned staff use of AI tools in research and drafting, and he blamed a docket entry’s mistakes on a law student from an institution Neals said strictly prohibits using AI in internships.

“The best approach is to run towards technology, not away from it,” counsels US District Court for the Southern District of California Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard, who routinely uses AI and trains other judges on the tools.

The cringe-worthy mishap highlights challenges law schools and courts face as artificial intelligence grows in usage among students and judges. AI-adopters say banning the technology is an overreaction because the tool can help ease backlogs caused by a shortage of judges and a dearth of support staff.

“There’s a knee-jerk reaction that interns can’t use AI, but a better approach is to teach students how to use it effectively and when not to use it,” said David Kemp, a professor teaching generative AI tools at Rutgers Law School. Once employers “see and understand the basics of AI, they understand the promise.”

Judge Neals did not respond to a request for comment.

Crushing Dockets

US District for the Western District of Texas Judge Xavier Rodriguez conducted an in-chambers experiment using public documents filed in court. He noted the time it took him to write a 130-page findings of fact and conclusions of law in the traditional manner. Then, after that order was released, he had an AI tool draft findings of fact.

The results, which are set to be published by Duke Law School, demonstrate that fact-checked AI-assisted rulings could propel efficiency. “What I’m trying to tell judges is how much faster we could have gotten an answer out to the parties using these tools,” Rodriguez said. “Instead of 10 months, we could get a draft, ensure validity, and get something out in two months,”

“The sheer amount of data that’s being hoisted upon both state and federal court judges continues to increase, so we need to have some responsible adoption of AI tools,” he said.

Rodriguez uses AI tools to prep for case conferences, quickly crafting event chronologies from items on the docket. He encourages staff to use AI with firm rules: clear all new AI tools by him first; run all AI work product through editing features in Microsoft Word; and analyze all AI-generated content through Westlaw or Lexis.

Clear Communication

With AI usage increasing, clear staff communication and protocols are increasingly important, Goddard said.

Goddard, who uses AI on things from routine tasks to the initial drafts of orders, has created guidelines for AI use in her chambers with an eye toward safeguarding private information.

“What judges don’t necessarily realize is that we have externs coming in that are on the cusp of a generation that learned how to write using generative AI,” she said. “They used it in law school and they may come into your chambers thinking that’s fine.”

The Administrative Office of the US Courts in Washington released interim AI guidance in July—a first for the office. The courts declined to share that guidance, though a response to Grassley from the office said judges are accountable for all the work they perform using AI, and Neals’ letter said the office allows “the use of and experimentation with AI tools while preserving the integrity and independence of the federal courts.”

‘Wake-up Call’

Like judges, law schools are grappling with how best to incorporate AI into academics. Many are finding they must catch up to a new reality.

“It would be irresponsible to not introduce students to AI use—whether we’re teaching AI to students or not, they’re using it,” said William H. J. Hubbard, deputy dean of the University of Chicago Law School.

Chicago introduces students to AI during orientation, runs a lab that created a tenant-assistant AI tool, and is developing a self-directed course for first year students all about AI, Hubbard said. With his institute sending the most students off to federal clerkships, he said it’s essential that students can use AI ethically and not embarrass future bosses in robes.

Amid the court controversies, classrooms are debating how to approach these tools as students bring their studies into the real world.

Association of American Law Schools President Austen L. Parrish, the dean of University of California Irvine School of Law, said nationally guidance is “all over the place.” Courtrooms are nervous about staff relying on AI, while law firms wants students to lean on it. Thus, he’s seeing more schools create flexible polices letting employers decide an extern’s AI use.

Rutgers Law professor Kemp is advocating for school-wide guidance at the New Jersey university even as he’s helping students take advantage of these tools, with some even developing AI tools for internship employers.

Seton Hall Law, which along with Rutgers sends the most externs to Neals’ chambers, declined multiple requests for comment about its policy for student AI use.

Some educators feel the snafu in Neals’ courtroom sent a message for schools sitting on the fence.

“This is definitely a wake-up call for law schools,” Washington University School of Law Dean Stefanie Lindquist said in a statement to Bloomberg Law. “AI education is no longer optional, and it is the responsibility of law schools to prepare the next generation of lawyers for the age of AI.”