The National Center for State Courts is not aware of any state court systems that have specifically mandated training on the use of AI for judicial officers, according to principal court management consultant Michael Navin.
And on the federal level, each of the country's 94 districts is responsible for its own AI use policy, according to U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas, who is among federal judges embracing the technology. This means that each system is free to regulate if and how its judges may interact with AI in the course of their roles.
But a lack of mandatory training does not appear to be impeding judges from exploring the technology.
More than half the federal judges in the country are at least experimenting with AI tools, according to a recent Northwestern University study finding that 60% of bankruptcy, magistrate, district and appellate judges surveyed reported having used the technology for their judicial work. Several courts across the country have also adopted policies that approve the use of AI by judges and other court staffers.
"The National Center for State Courts has created a training module that's available to both state and federal judges," Judge Rodrigez told Law360 recently. "I took that course — that was sort of helpful for judges who are new to all this. I would highly recommend that course to them. They're offering it to judges [for] free. It explores the basics, the ethics, some of the preliminaries that everybody should know about AI."
On the other hand, Judge Rodriguez said, courts have been "woefully deficient" in vetting AI platforms for approved use by judges and training them about effective and ethical use of the system. For now, any training available remains largely piecemeal.
While the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts has opted to take a proactive approach to AI implementation among state judges by creating a proprietary AI system and offering judges training in how to use it, many other court systems, including the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, have not yet begun offering guidance or resources to judicial officers who wish to experiment with the technology.
Judge Rodriguez, together with U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell of the District of Colorado and Judge Scott U. Schlegel of Louisiana's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal earlier this year formed the Judicial Artificial Intelligence Consortium, a judge-led group offering judicial AI training and an "open forum" for judges to ask questions and learn. About 350 judges have joined the group since it was formed at the beginning of the year, Judge Rodriguez said.
"Our governance mechanisms really lag behind how fast the technology is moving, which is just extraordinary, and it doesn't show any sign of slowing down," said Gary Marchant, a professor of emerging technologies at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. "It really presents a real challenge for everybody in every profession — journalism, law, medicine, you name it."
To Marchant, the only way out is through. Judges who do use generative AI stand to benefit from increased efficiency, and holding back from experimenting with the technology could pose a significant disadvantage, according to Marchant.
"We have to try to be as proactive as we can. And just getting up or just saying, 'I don't need to know this' — it's just an absolute no-go in this modern society. You just can't function without having some proficiency," Marchant said.
Starting out with at least a basic understanding of AI's abilities and limitations sets courts up for success, said Navin of the National Center for State Courts.
"Instituting basic training early on equips users to better handle developments," according to Navin. "By creating that foundation … it makes it easier when new tools come out, or new tools are expanded."
Arizona recently set up training programs for judges, Marchant said. He added that ethics authorities in other states, such as Michigan and West Virginia, have also produced guidance saying judicial officers must stay up to date on new technology.
When California's 58 superior courts were directed to create internal policies for the use of generative AI among judges and court staff last year, one thing not contemplated was the role of training.
California's Judicial Council, which mandated new generative AI policies across the state's trial court system, does not offer training on AI to judges and staff, but many of the individual courts have established their own internal training, according to a judicial council spokesperson.
State courts in California's Contra Costa, Calaveras, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties opted to mandate AI training. Others, including Los Angeles County, have enacted training programs, despite failing to incorporate training in their rulebooks.
Michele Neitz, founder of San Francisco Law School's Center for Law, Tech and Social Good, told Law360 Pulse that judges must be educated on how to detect bias, avoid hallucinations and maintain privacy and confidentiality.
"If we are unleashing a new technology and not offering proper training required to understand responsible use, we're not just doing judges a disservice — we're doing litigants a disservice," Neitz said. "We're really doing a disservice to the entire judicial system by not offering training."
Neitz said the lack of neutral, academic-style training was one reason she founded the center, which also provides blockchain training for attorneys and judges. Some sessions are one-off lunchtime seminars, others are ongoing series, and all are updated constantly as technology continues to develop.
"I think judges have the most difficult job in the legal system," Neitz said, noting that many courts are experiencing case backups due to a lack of sources and that it is "asking a lot of judges" to add any mandatory training.
"I know they can rise to the challenge, but I think we should recognize that it was adding an extra layer on top of an already difficult job," Neitz added.
--Additional reporting by Matt Perez. Editing by Karin Roberts.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
