USA Law and Practice Contributed by: John Desmond, Alexis Taitel, Alice Samberg, Mackenzie Robinson and Peter Dragovich, Dickinson Wright PLLC
on the use of AI that aims to allow for its experimenta- tion while preserving the integrity of the federal judicial process. The interim guidance issued by the AI Task Force recommends extreme caution in using AI, sug- gesting that a human verify all AI-generated content and that its use be disclosed. State courts are developing more concrete rules, but they vary widely by state and individual judge. For example, in October 2025, New York issued a set of internal rules governing the use of AI by state judges and staff. The rules permit judges and staff to use pre-approved generative AI, but require all employees, including judges, to attend mandatory training. By comparison, the California State court system issued a rule requiring all California State courts to elect
whether they will prohibit or permit their employees to use AI. As a result, AI usage varies greatly across the State of California, differing from one jurisdiction to the next. In the coming years, states and the federal judiciary are likely to continue issuing guidance and adopting rules that cautiously permit the use of AI for limited purposes. Ultimately, however, courts are likely to remain exceedingly alert in its use to prevent AI from replacing a judge’s decision-making authority. Indeed, there have been cases of misuse of AI even by judges, resulting in incorrect information being presented. The need for caution and responsible use cannot be over- emphasised.
554 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook