Key highlights:

• • • Staffing crisis and rising caseloads 鈥� US courts are struggling with significant staffing shortages and increasing caseloads, leading to operational delays and overworked employees.

    • Cautious but growing AI adoption 鈥� Most courts are proceeding carefully with limited training and a strong focus on protecting confidentiality, ethical standards, and human judgment.

    • Human-centered, governance, and education needed 鈥� Experts stress that successful AI integration requires leadership, comprehensive education for court personnel, and robust governance policies to ensure AI supports, rather than replaces, human roles in the justice system.

A staggering 91% of professionals surveyed at state courts said they believe AI will have a moderate to transformative impact on judicial operations. Indeed, the mainstreaming of AI technology arrives at a critical juncture for America’s court systems. Today, courts in the United States are wrestling with the dual challenges of severe staffing shortages coupled with the urgent need to drive adoption of AI tools to alleviate the pain, according to findings from a recent webinar that was part of the , a joint initiative from of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI).

More than two-thirds (68%) of judges and court professionals surveyed for the Consortium鈥檚 2025 Survey of State Courts report said their courts had experiencing staffing shortages in the past year, with 61% anticipating continued shortfalls. Indeed, these challenges are forcing judges and court administrators to navigate between immediate operational needs and long-term technological transformation.

, Executive Officer and Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, says that there is also 鈥渢he challenge of people leaving. We have people in our workforce in Los Angeles that have been here 35, 40, 45 years. Well, they are getting to the end of their careers. They are ready to leave, and they are going to take a lot of knowledge with them. And at the same time, we have the challenge of getting newer folks to the organization to come work for the court.鈥�

Current state of court staffing

Because of this staffing crisis, critical positions across the judicial system remain unfilled as courts struggle to hire enough court reporters, interpreters, and administrative staff. These roles are essential to maintain citizens鈥� constitutional rights to due process and access to justice.

The operational impact of these shortages is severe and far-reaching, the data shows. Despite having fewer staff members, 45% of courts report increasing caseloads, which is enabling a perfect storm of overwhelming demand and diminished capacity. For example, 77% of courts encounter hearing delays weekly; and 38% of the court workforce now work between 46 and 50 or more hours per week 鈥� yet only 52% say they feel they have adequate time to fulfill their responsibilities effectively.

“Of the people who are working 50-plus hours, only about 12% said they are feeling like they have enough time to do the things needed,鈥� explains , Enterprise Content Manager for risk, compliance, government and courts at TRI. 鈥淚t seems like we need to find a way to both decrease the hours that people are working, and also make sure that they feel like they’re able to get done the things that they need to get done to successfully handle their jobs.”

Careful implementation of AI necessary

Only 25% of court systems currently offer AI training to their personnel, according to the report. This cautious approach reflects the judiciary’s measured response to emerging technology by prioritizing careful implementation over rapid adoption. Despite acknowledging AI’s importance, courts remain focused on addressing immediate operational needs rather than rushing into wholesale technological transformation.

The promise of AI applications in court operations extends across multiple domains, from making administrative efficiency improvements in document processing, scheduling, and case management to enhancing public services through AI-powered chatbots for basic inquiries. For example, Slayton听says that the Superior Court of Los Angeles County has deployed an AI-powered jury duty rescheduling system that allows citizens to interact conversationally with backend systems.

Join the AI Policy Consortium 鈥� a joint initiative from of the National Center for State Courts and the 成人VR视频 Institute 鈥� for its next webinar on

Still, technical barriers loom large, as courts struggle with limited technology budgets, dependence on external IT support, and the critical need for private, secure AI systems rather than public tools that could compromise sensitive case information. Ethical concerns also weigh heavily on judicial leaders who must balance innovation with fundamental principles of judicial independence, the critical role of humans in decision-making, confidentiality and maintaining public trust.

Add in to that the worries that rising attrition among court staff is another potential barrier to wide-scale AI adoption. However, the , Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System says he does not see this as a threat. 鈥淚 really do not anticipate job loss being an issue, because AI is something that requires human monitoring,鈥� Judge Zayas explains, adding that AI tools can help address staffing shortages, since they are capable of assisting with tasks like transcription and language translation, 鈥渁nd there’s just not enough people for us to hire to handle these things.鈥�

The goal in deploying AI, he continues, is 鈥渘ot [to] avoid hiring other people but filling the void that has [been] created by the sort of mass resignations that we see happening just generally with certain generations.”

Looking ahead

To leverage the opportunity of AI and address some of the concerns involved, , Founder & CEO of Creative Lawyers, recommends that state courts adopt a measured human first-AI forward philosophy and that court leadership can move forward with implementation. Specifically, Leonard observes that leadership matters more than specific tools in addressing mounting operational challenges and achieving successful implementation. More specifically, Judge Zayas, Slayton, and Leonard recommend that courts start with these actions as part of any successful AI integration efforts:

Begin with training & education 鈥� Comprehensive training programs are needed across all court levels to build AI literacy among judges, staff, and attorneys. “I think the best way to overcome concerns [about AI] is through education and training in the use of AI technology, even if it just means getting familiar with that technology 鈥� for everyone involved in the daily work of the court system,鈥� including judges, court staff, attorneys, and unrepresented litigants, says Judge Zayas.

Focus on the human-centered approach 鈥� Centering human needs around technology ensures that AI serves as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for human judgment.

Institute good governance 鈥� The development of policies and procedures remains key, as courts need governance mechanisms for establishing clear AI usage guidelines. The Judicial Council of California, for example, is adopting statewide rules requiring every court to develop AI policies, addressing ethical considerations including confidentiality, bias prevention, and appropriate use boundaries.

As courts navigate unprecedented staffing challenges, AI emerges not as a replacement for human workers, but as a critical tool to fill gaps and enhance efficiency. Success will depend on thoughtful implementation, comprehensive training, and maintaining the delicate balance between innovation and judicial integrity.

You can access a full copy of the 2025 Survey of State Courts report from the听, a joint initiative from of the National Center for State Courts and the 成人VR视频 Institute here

Even though higher caseloads and delays abound, the survey found that courts are lagging behind other areas of the law in actually understanding and adopting advanced technology. The majority of courts surveyed still do not allow AI use for court business, with concerns around overreliance on technology and malicious use of AI still among top concerns. There also remains a lack of court personnel to actually institute the technology, and many courts expect decreases in their IT and technology budgets.

Unfortunately, this represents a potential missed opportunity for courts, given how many judges and court personnel want to tackle the ongoing problems of case delays and backlogs. GenAI, after all, is squarely designed to perform low-level, repeatable tasks in order to save time for court personnel. However, reluctance to even allow the technology into courtrooms, let alone embrace it, may cause courts to become disconnected from the private law attorneys who already are integrating the tool into their daily work.

鈥淥verall, I think the GenAI’s integration into all areas of professional life is inevitable,鈥� one US senior law clerk told TRI. 鈥淐ourts have an opportunity to embrace the technology where it can be used, but I know that many judges will take convincing before adopting the technology.鈥�

The state of AI limbo

Although some courts are looking to adopt GenAI, few have actually done so as of now. As it currently stands, just 17% of respondents said their courts have instituted any sort of GenAI, while an additional 17% said their courts plan to do so within the next 12 months.

For some courts, the barriers to adoption may be structural. About two-thirds of courts experienced staff shortages in the last year, after all, and 30% expect their IT and technology budgets to decrease within the next 12 months, according to respondents. Further, some courts may simply not have the bandwidth to onboard GenAI in an enterprise way 鈥� an especially difficult task for a new technology that takes time and care to properly implement.

Register now for The Emerging Technology and Generative AI Forum, a cutting-edge conference that will explore the latest advancements in GenAI and their potential to revolutionize legal and tax practices

Yet even for those court professionals looking to use AI or GenAI on an individual basis, some courts may have barriers that are more cultural. In fact, GenAI may not only be discouraged within many courts, but it also may be outright banned. According to the report, more than two-thirds of respondents said that AI is not allowed for court business 鈥� and for county/municipal courts, that figure rises to more than 80%. Few courts also provide any sort of training around AI to their court workers.

The reasons as to why largely breaks down into two distinct categories. When asked what potential negative consequences of AI they are most worried about, more than one-third of respondents cited overreliance on technology, which could possibly diminish attorney reasoning and skills. 鈥淭here’s an unfortunate likelihood that it will surpass what it should be 鈥� a drafting and inspiration tool 鈥� and become a shoddy substitute for thinking,鈥� said one state court law clerk.

Additionally, one-quarter of respondents pointed to the potential for AI to be used maliciously, such as with counterfeit orders or falsely created evidence. This mirrors findings from the TRI鈥檚 Generative AI in Professional Services Report, in which respondents highlighted hallucinations and GenAI鈥檚 general accuracy as one of their major barriers for adoption.

The problem many courts may run into, however, is how quickly AI is being integrated into tools that they do use on a daily basis. More than 80% of respondents to the courts report said their courts use case management, document management and e-filing systems 鈥� most of which use some element of AI to categorize and sort documents, and are rapidly scaling GenAI capabilities to ask questions of case documents, summarize case documents, and create timelines of cases, among other features. Similar features are present within data analytics and reporting technologies, document automation technologies, and many back office administrative technologies 鈥� all of which are used in more than half of courts.

As a result, courts may find themselves stuck. The legal world 鈥� as well as the legal technology tools courts regularly use 鈥� are rapidly moving towards GenAI, becoming a regular part of their daily work in some fashion. Judges will be facing these technologies sooner rather than later, and if courts don鈥檛 change their regulations and overall posture towards AI and GenAI, they risk being left behind and without the opportunity to shape the future of technology in the legal profession.

A chance for leadership

Indeed, as the report illustrates, there remains an opportunity for courts to be leaders in this space both for internal operations and for the legal world at large. Externally, courts are regularly asked to provide guidance about emerging topic areas, and GenAI is no exception. By educating themselves about the practical opportunities and challenges of GenAI, judges and court personnel can better work with the private sector to establish boundaries around acceptable AI usage in courtrooms.

鈥淭here is no doubt its use will increase,鈥� said one US court attorney. 鈥淪o, there needs to be strong processes and controls applied to the generative process itself regarding ethical obligations and accuracy, and to setting parameters within the legal system in which it will be acceptable.鈥�

Even within internal court operations, however, there remains an opportunity for growth. Only about half of court professionals say they have enough time to do their jobs, according to the report, with respondents saying they desire more time to work on case preparation and management, legal research, and even doing their actual jobs. When asked what they would do if more time were available, one respondent simply said: 鈥淚 would just spend more time doing everything.鈥�

Respondents who have used AI and GenAI recognize there is an opportunity here. Even with the slow pace of AI adoption generally across court systems, current active users estimate saving 2.8 hours per week over the next year. In three years, they estimate that figure to grow to nearly 6 hours per week, and in eight years to nearly 9 hours per week.

These figures are estimates, of course, and assume both technology advancements as well as wider court adoption. However, there are many areas in which technology can help courts today 鈥� and as Judge Scott Schlegel of Louisiana鈥檚 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently , there remain a lot of initiatives that courts could tackle easily through technology. And the time to start building that architecture is now.

鈥淭here are so many things out there that we need to get to before the shiny new object, which is GenAI 鈥� but that鈥檚 not to say we should ignore it,鈥� Judge Schlegel said. 鈥淭here are so many things we could do today that are low-cost, low-hanging fruit that will not only impact the justice system overnight but will form the building blocks that we can properly layer GenAI on top of it.鈥�

You can access a full copy of the听听from the TRI and NCSC AI Policy Consortium for Law and Courts here

Jump to 鈫�

Staffing, Operations and Technology: A 2025 survey of State Courts

The report was gleaned from a survey of 443 state, county and municipal court judges and court professionals, conducted in March and April.

Shortages of skilled labor are widespread, with nearly half of survey respondents considering it having a transformational or high impact on their court鈥檚 operations. Respondents also said they expect staffing shortages to continue over the next year, particularly in court clerk and clerk staff roles. Court employees are typically working long hours yet struggling to manage their workloads, respondents said.

The report notes that efficiency continues to be a major challenge for courts. While respondents say they are handling a higher volume of caseloads with decreasing case backlogs, they are also more likely to report increases in case delays and continuances.

Technology challenges

The majority of courts have adopted many key automated tools, but technology gaps remain and budgets for additional investments may be limited, even as AI and GenAI increasingly take hold across the legal landscape, respondents said.

On one end of the technology scale, use of virtual hearings is now widespread, for example, with the vast majority of respondents (80%) saying that their court conducts or participates in virtual hearings. And a similar percentage feel that the use of virtual procedures can increase litigants鈥� access to justice, giving them the ability to attend hearings online without having to miss work or find childcare or caregiving assistance.

In addition, the majority of respondents (58%) said they believe that virtual hearings have improved efficiency by reducing the number of litigants that fail to appear in court, thus easing the need for rescheduling.

At the same time, courts must deal with the same transformational GenAI tidal wave that is facing the rest of the legal ecosystem. The majority of court respondents (55%) rate the rise of AI and GenAI as the most significant trend that they are facing, saying it will have a transformational or high impact on their work over the next five years.

Despite the potential for significant efficiency improvements and time savings, courts have generally been slow to adopt AI and GenAI. Currently, only 17% of respondents said their court was using GenAI. In fact, the vast majority of respondents (70%) said their court currently does not allow employees to use AI-based tools for court business. Further, just 17% said their court was planning to adopt GenAI over the next year. This means the vast majority of courts may not currently have plans or strategies to evaluate or implement GenAI-driven tools and solutions. Given what respondents see as the transformational impact of GenAI to potentially streamline their operations and improve efficiency, this raises major questions about courts鈥� timelines for adopting GenAI.

Generational workforce shifts

The ability of courts to incorporate GenAI into their operations also affects another major trend facing the courts, the report shows, such as the generational shifts in workforce and leadership that are taking place. As Baby Boomers and Gen Xers leave the workforce, Gen Zers are entering, and Millennials are increasingly moving into leadership positions. Respondents rated these shifts nearly as high as they did the rise of AI and GenAI as to their impact on the courts.

Courts must deal with the same transformational GenAI tidal wave that is facing the rest of the legal ecosystem.

This carries major implications around courts鈥� ability to adopt technology to improve efficiency. As Gen Zers increasingly move into the workforce and Millennials into leadership positions, it is significant that both groups are considered digital natives 鈥� those people who grew up after the birth of Internet 鈥� so they are very comfortable using technology and may find it easier to manage automated workflows. In addition, they are likely to transition faster and require less training as courts continue to move from manual to automated workflows.

At the same time, they may be resistant to jobs and tasks that still rely heavily on manual tasks, such as entering and managing case information and other data. A requirement to handle high levels of manual tasks could hinder talent recruitment and retention, the report notes.

In all, these factors give even more reason for courts to continue, if not accelerate, their adoption of advanced AI-driven technology.

Looking ahead

The听Staffing, Operations and Technology: A 2025 survey of State Courts shows that our nation鈥檚 courts are facing an unprecedented convergence of major waves of change, especially the far-reaching impacts of both GenAI and generational shifts in workforce and leadership roles. And courts must deal with these changes while continuing to face challenges around managing staff shortages and case backlogs. Resources, including often-limited budgets, must be strategically balanced between current operations and investments in technology that could improve future operations.

Within a few years, courts will likely look and operate much differently than they do today. The question is whether courts will be able to successfully manage these changes, or, if not, continue to face growing struggles with workloads, staffing, backlogs, and delays. At the same time, judges and court professionals hope they can move their courts forward to emerge on the other side of these changes with more efficient, technology-driven operations that will facilitate faster handling of cases and result in improved access to justice for all citizens.

You can access

a full copy of the from the 成人VR视频 Institute and the National Center for State Courts AI Policy Consortium for Law and Courts here

This has contributed to a in the legal sector: As knowledgeable legacy employees retire, those employees remaining experience an increased workload, steep learning curves, and increasingly complex legal matters and technology to manage.

For many courts, bringing in new team members may require additional on-boarding resources. Indeed, only 12% of employees in the United States rate their workplace as . This can have a devastating impact, as effective on-boarding procedures dramatically increase employee engagement, productivity, and retention, research has shown.

As knowledgeable legacy employees retire, those employees remaining experience an increased workload, steep learning curves, and increasingly complex legal matters and technology to manage.

While employee orientation includes such routine tasks as completing new employee paperwork, on-boarding is a longer, immersive process that integrates new hires into workplace culture 鈥� exposing new employees to shared habits and beliefs within an organization and helping employees to .

By connecting new hires to organizational beliefs and the why behind work processes, organizations can achieve greater retention, higher employee engagement, and increased productivity. In fact, is one which addresses beliefs and employee strengths and introduces new hires to their strategic partners while outlining their future within the organization.

Best made plans, pre-pandemic

In 2018, King County Superior Court (Seattle, WA) partnered with to develop a comprehensive, year-long employee on-boarding program with funding from a State Justice Institute Technical Assistance grant. Geared around reduction in turnover, boosting employee confidence, and shortening the time from hire to full productivity, the was scheduled to launch in 2020, but the court would instead spend the next three years adapting and pivoting through the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey, CEO of Praxis Consulting, and Linda Ridge, Chief Administrative Officer for King County Superior Court, the pandemic pivot was necessary to keep their ambitious on-boarding program on track. All-Aboard, in its original format, consisted of four phases over the first year of an individual鈥檚 employment. The program focused on:

• • • welcoming and socializing new employees to their team, department, and the court;
    • connecting new employees to their co-workers;
    • communicating expectations and teaching new employees their day-to-day responsibilities; and
    • integrating them into the court by engaging them in fulfilling the court鈥檚 purpose, demonstrating its core values, and achieving its goals.

Post-pandemic, King County Superior Court now operates in a dramatically different workplace landscape. Today, the court consists of 54 judges, 10 commissioners, and more than 300 staff members. Weathering the pandemic involved a significant number of temporary hires to integrate new court technology and support .

More than 60% of the court鈥檚 judicial bench has turned over in the last five years, and while judicial officers and bailiffs are 100% on-site, two-thirds of Superior Court staff now have some form of remote capacity for their role. Further, 25% of employees in 2023 had been with the court less than five years and the organization has new leaders in the Court Chief Administrative Officer role, the Deputy Chief Administrative Role, and numerous other managerial and director level roles since 2019.

The churn of organizational turnover has brought some managerial-level concern that there simply isn鈥檛 enough time to engage in a comprehensive on-boarding process at this scale. Leadership disagrees, stressing that cultural and connection, centered on-boarding, are more important than ever before in today鈥檚 hybrid work environment.

More than 60% of the court鈥檚 judicial bench has turned over in the last five years, and while judicial officers and bailiffs are 100% on-site, two-thirds of Superior Court staff now have some form of remote capacity for their role.

The original All-Aboard program was designed to reduce the chances of employees feeling siloed by giving them the opportunity to understand the larger organization through observing court proceedings, touring the county鈥檚 three court facilities, and meeting with various organizational leaders beyond their supervisor. These elements will remain a part of the reimagined All-Aboard program, anticipated to be formally re-launched later this year.

Technology solutions to reduce training time

The time burden of on-boarding often falls heavily on those responsible for training new employees. Best practices suggest that training materials are documented to ensure that training is executed consistently, and resources are made available on-demand in the future. The suggests that organizations dedicate time to documenting processes and workflows internally to guarantee consistent procedures across the organization and create a shareable resource for both new hires and current employees to access step-by-step instructions as a refresher.

Reducing time spent on compliance and clarification training allows more focus on meaningful connection and culture exposure for new employees. For example, incorporating mentor programs into on-boarding processes can better foster new employee connections. To this end, King County Superior Court is incorporating a New Employee Buddy program as a part of the relaunch of All-Aboard, in which high-performing colleagues (not supervisors) will be paired with new hires to serve as resource for the first three months of a new hire鈥檚 tenure. While check-ins can occur online with the new technology in place in King County, leadership still stresses that in-person connection is an important part of employee on-boarding.

As courts across the country continue to weather retirements and higher employee turnover, developing highly effective on-boarding processes is a critical investment. By prioritizing consistency in processes and documentation of how things are done, institutional knowledge can more effectively be retained, and training burdens can be reduced.

In remote, onsite, and hybrid workplaces, on-boarding processes which promote connection to the organization鈥檚 mission and culture can help new hires see how their role connects to the larger organization, which in turn can lead to more satisfied and productive employees.

You can download a full copy of 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2^nd annual 2024 State of the Courts report here.

Yet, this integration of AI-driven technology faces skepticism, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2024 State of the Courts report, which showed that more than half of the judges and court professionals (51%) surveyed for the report shared concerns about the accuracy and quality of data sources tied to AI-driven tools, as well as concerns over preserving human judgment in the justice system (19%).

Not surprisingly, some courts are issuing new guidelines on AI usage as cases of misuse emerge. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana), for example, governing the use of AI in November 2023, requiring certification that AI tools were not used, and when they are used, requiring certification that citations were reviewed for accuracy. This follows the appearance of (fictitious citations generated by AI tools) that had been included in appellate briefs.

The Florida Bar鈥檚 ethics committee also released a proposed opinion suggested that lawyers should obtain permission from clients before disclosing confidential client information to third-party AI tools, as well as making recommendations on oversight best practices. And an opinion issued by the reminds judges that they must be aware of the influence of AI in their lives and never use AI tools to reach a conclusion on the outcome of a case.

Ensuring accountability with AI tools

While some, like Judge Scott Schlegel of Louisiana’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, have advocated for court modernization, there鈥檚 skepticism about using . However, there are ways to harness AI鈥檚 potential without compromising public trust. The argues, for instance, that AI tools can be used for the benefit of litigants through the development of litigant self-help portals and for providing legal training to community members. Legal practitioners and judges can also benefit from the use of AI tools to analyze past case histories and rulings to better tailor their own orders, motions, and briefs. Judges could also consider recent trends in establishing bail or sentences.

Particularly concerning are the evidentiary concerns of the use of AI in the courtroom, highlighted by an increase of deepfakes, or AI-generated fake (yet highly believable) images or videos. The (ABA) hosted a presentation on the impact of deepfakes and their outsized impact on jurors. Indeed, jurors who hear oral and video testimony are 650% more likely to retain that information and tend to align their perceptions with what they have seen, even if they are aware that the presented evidence could be fake, according to the presentation.

Rules of evidence, as they are currently written, require that evidence be relevant, but not necessarily authentic. The Hon. Paul Grimm, retired U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland, suggests that judges schedule hearings to dispute the authenticity of evidence well before jurors ever see potential deepfakes.

Addressing workforce shortages & transparency in courts

As more courts across the country face staff shortages, states are looking to modernize their technology and reevaluate their workforce requirements. California courts and often find their hands are tied from using voice writers or electronic recordings for many cases. Court reporters can require up to six years of training and must pass rigorous certification exams, while voice writers can be .

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Florida) utilizes digital reporters to monitor audio recordings of proceedings and produce official written transcripts. Digital reporters can work remotely and can oversee several courtrooms simultaneously. Matt Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator for the Ninth Circuit, says that he feels speech-to-text AI software tools aren鈥檛 yet the equivalent of the human ear. In fact, automatic speech recognition programs are prone to errors when multiple defendants share a microphone, are more likely to inappropriately transcribe non-white speakers, and can inadvertently capture private sidebar conversations. Currently, use of speech-to-text software still requires human review, annotation, and at times, redaction.

Indeed, the US judicial system has been called to task by some for its compared to other branches of government. PACER, the federal court鈥檚 public access service tool, charges the public to view records online, and the revenue generated from the tool comprises about 2% of the federal judiciary鈥檚 budget, or more than $145 million in 2019. By comparison, many executive and legislative federal agencies provide free access to their records online. Legislative efforts to broaden free access to court records have stalled, most recently in 2022.

Leaders in academia and technology have developed their own open-source tools to use AI technology to extract such information from court datasets. For example, groups at the used AI to extract information from transcripts of parole hearings; and SCALES Open Knowledge Network (OKN), a collaborative academic research project led by Northwestern University, has used AI to analyze a range of datapoints across district courts. (Their datasets can be , and they have made by others.)

Data analysis can lead to better outcomes

Georgia State University, a partner in the SCALES-OKN work with Northwestern, was awarded a $1.5 million award from the National Science Foundation in 2023 to develop an . The proposed platform will use AI tools to connect and share criminal justice data across data silos in the states of Washington and Georgia with a goal of reaching better client-centered outcomes. A smaller-scale program was launched in the in 2023, which digitized and organized more than 150 million court records. By analyzing such rich datasets that include immigration history, mental health status, prior convictions, military service, and more, attorneys can help advocate for defendants and connect them to social programs as a diversion to incarceration.

In short, while judicial hesitancy around AI tools remains present, these concerns do not excuse the judiciary from remaining vigilant in understanding these tools and their impacts. While the judicial process may prefer to remain human-centric in the present, AI tools are showing that they can improve court participant experiences, judicial outcomes, and increase transparency within the judicial system.

Already, law firms and corporate legal departments alike have experimented with and begun integrating AI tools, while state bars and regulators have begun instituting rules for how Gen AI should properly be used in legal work settings.

However, there is one crucial element of the legal ecosystem that has, for the most part, sat on the Gen AI sidelines: the nation鈥檚 court system. Indeed, in general courts are not utilizing Gen AI technologies, with less than 10% either actively using the tools or planning on using them within the next year, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent State of the Courts survey report. Further, many judges and court professionals at state, municipal, and county courts throughout the United States that responded to this survey said they do not feel they even know enough information to have an opinion on whether Gen AI should be used in court settings.

鈥淚 just don’t know enough about the systems to say that I am confident [these technologies] are safe and secure,鈥� said one state court judge. Another state court judge added they have 鈥渃oncerns the information provided will not be accurate and will confuse litigants.鈥�

As more and more legal parties begin to rely on Gen AI, however, courts also could risk falling out of lockstep with those appearing in their courtrooms. 鈥淚t’s just so new,鈥� explained one county staff attorney. 鈥淐ourt systems are notoriously behind the times, and with AI technology evolving so quickly, I worry the courts won’t be able to remain caught up to the latest AI safety and system requirements.鈥�

Many are still learning

Although public versions of Gen AI technology have been available in the market for more than a year, many court personnel still desire more education around its use. When asked whether Gen AI can be used in a court setting, 68% of survey respondents said they were unsure or did not have enough information to answer the question. Similarly, when asked whether it should be used in a court setting, 58% said they were unsure.

鈥淣ot enough info. Just don鈥檛 trust it yet,鈥� answered one state judge when asked about their concerns with the technology. Another noted that they have 鈥済eneral anxiety and uncertainty about using technology which replaces human judgment and intuition with programmed algorithms for decision-making purposes.鈥�

Notably, judges might actually be more unsure about Gen AI鈥檚 implications in court than other court professionals. In fact, 67% of judges said they were unsure or did not have enough information about whether Gen AI should be used in courts, compared to 50% of other personnel, according to the report. As to whether Gen AI can be used, 69% of judges were unsure, compared to 66% of other court personnel surveyed.

This uncertain nature was also more pronounced at the county and municipal court level as a whole than at the state level. For instance, 75% of respondents in county/municipal courts said they did not know whether Gen AI can be used in a court setting, versus 65% of state court respondents. For whether Gen AI should be used, more than two-thirds (67%) of county/municipal court respondents said they were unsure, compared to just more than half (54%) of state court respondents.

Part of the reason for this viewpoint may be a lack of training with Gen AI tools and a need for more targeted education. 鈥淐hambers staff never receives adequate training when our IT department makes new technology available to us. We just get to go figure it out,鈥� said one state law clerk.

Others feel there simply has not been the time 鈥� or budget 鈥� to properly invest in Gen AI at this stage. 鈥淐ourt staff will never have the expertise to manage AI to keep it within its assigned tasks and effectively monitor its effectiveness and accuracy,鈥� explained one state court judge. 鈥淲e would have to rely on outside help, and we do not have the budget or staff to do it.鈥�

What鈥檚 holding them back?

Of those respondents who did have firm opinions on Gen AI however, the outlook tended to skew negatively. When asked whether Gen AI can be used in a court setting, a roughly equal portion of respondents said yes (15%) and no (17%); but when asked whether it should be used in a court setting, the no (33%) answers far outweighed the yes (9%) answers.

The reasons as to why were varied, but one in particular was paramount: Gen AI鈥檚 perceived inaccuracies, cited by 51% of those who said they had risk concerns. A number of respondents pointed specifically to cases in which public-facing Gen AI programs such as ChatGPT experienced hallucinations in court cases, leading to incorrect or completely made-up case citations during research.

鈥�Garbage in, garbage out. Data on which artificial intelligence (hah!) functions rely upon the honesty and capability of those who enter it into digital storage,鈥� answered one state magistrate judge. 鈥淚 do not trust those who create the data banks and programs. When I read of lawyers asking artificial intelligence to write briefs for them 鈥� and the AI citing non-existent cases 鈥� I mind the wisdom of [Harry Potter character] Arthur Weasley: 鈥楴ever trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain.鈥欌��

However, the risk of hallucinations continues to decrease, both as proprietary legal AI tools introduce checks to prevent incorrect answers, and as the large language models underpinning these tools become more accurate themselves. As a result, an emerging concern for some courts is not the accuracy of the technology itself, but whether its results will be interpreted or applied incorrectly.

This could be a concern internally as well, as one state court judge noted: 鈥淚 am concerned that my law clerks will rely too extensively on AI research and fail to corroborate such research with their own independent research via traditional Westlaw search methods.鈥� However, some respondents also pointed to the effect of Gen AI tools on the public, such as one county law clerk who answered: 鈥淟ay people will use it to draft their own court documents, not understanding the nuances of specific words in a court setting.鈥�

The report鈥檚 respondents also noted other potential barriers to AI adoption. More than 10% of judges cited each of three categories 鈥� data protection and security; needing more experience and training; and the potential for misuse and manipulation 鈥� as pain points for current AI usage.

But for some, there remains the simple barrier that a machine is not a human. This aversion to technology has been mirrored across various populations in 成人VR视频 Institute studies, but it perhaps particularly acute in the court setting 鈥� 19% cited the lack of an emotional component as a concern with Gen AI, the second-most cited concern about inaccuracies.

In that way, the biggest barrier to Gen AI鈥檚 growth in the court setting may not be the technology itself, but how to best marry the technology with the human focus of law to provide the best experience for all.

鈥淥ne word, artificial,鈥� said one state court judge. 鈥淭he courts deal with real people with real issues. Being in the court system is dehumanizing currently, and we fight to minimize that effect.鈥�

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent State of the Courts survey report here.

U.S. Supreme Court even addressed the presence of AI in the legal field, noting that while he didn鈥檛 see AI taking over the role of judges, he did see it significantly impacting the legal community. At this point, it is clear that there is some uncertainty about usage, and that attitude is coming from the top down.

To get further clarity on this, the 成人VR视频 Institute surveyed the landscape of the courts, querying judges and court professionals at a number of different levels and jurisdictions, to produce . This just-published report covers much of what is on survey respondents; minds, from caseloads to technology and everything in between. This year, the annual report delves deeply into how court professionals and judges see the use of Gen AI in the courtroom.

The concerns over technology also become more dire when you consider that more than half of the respondents said they expect staffing shortages within the coming 12 months.

Although AI was important in all areas, according to survey respondents, they also said they were still managing many of the challenges that they had cited in our previous survey, conducted in 2022. These concerns were strongly reflective of how courts have had to navigate through the post-pandemic world, which still includes hearing delays, growing caseloads, and the slower pace of digitalization and modernization within the courts themselves.

Yet, while these concerns were still reflected in our latest survey, many of these challenges have receded in their minds; for example, while increasing caseloads continue to be the biggest change that respondents said they had experienced in the past two years, with 40% of respondents citing this change, that was down from 45% in our previous survey.

Also, there have been changes in the greater use and overall acceptance of virtual hearings, and subsequently, more respondents said they were seeing the advantages of the practice. Indeed, most respondents (82%) said that virtual hearings increase justice opportunities for litigants 鈥� a sentiment that has risen from 76% since 2022. And nearly all respondents (90%) say that virtual courts increase justice opportunities by removing the geographic and financial barriers that had previously been major impediments to litigant participation.

The report also goes into the use and management of the court, with respondents citing digital evidence management as a top area of concern. In areas where digital evidence systems are not used, nearly three-fifths (58%) think that it would be beneficial. This is an 8-percentage point increase since the previous report. Overall, it appears that the need for technology is increasing.

In fact, these concerns over technology also become more dire when you consider that more than half of the respondents said they expect staffing shortages within the coming 12 months. That expectation will require staff to rely more heavily on technology to keep the court moving and provide access to citizens in the long run.

Overall, the report shows that court professionals and judges are enjoying broader engagement with technology solutions, especially around such critical areas as evidence collection and storage as digital storage and certain case-material sharing and management tools are seeing more acceptance across the board.

While there is no consensus yet on Gen AI, it will obviously play a part in the courts鈥� future. In addition to keeping an eye on the evolution of that technology, it will be important to keep an eye on the evolution of other technologies that increase efficiency and, ultimately, access to justice for all citizens.

You can download the full here.

The City of Pasadena (California) Police Department issued body cameras to officers beginning in 2016, generating . This has culminated in more than one million pieces of digital evidence in the ensuing five years. All digital records must be securely maintained (organized, tagged, and tracked) 鈥� even if that evidence isn鈥檛 yet related to a case. Indeed, today鈥檚 digital artifacts can be tomorrow鈥檚 digital evidence.

Beyond digital artifacts captured directly by law enforcement agencies, modernized data systems streamline the , such as social media histories, cell phone records, and CCTV video footage. The size, complexity, and sheer abundance of digital records have pushed more law enforcement agencies to move away from on-premises servers to more contemporary storage solutions.

Law enforcement shifts push the judiciary鈥檚 hand

A 2022 analysis of 100-plus state and local law enforcement agencies indicated that more than half are already using or plan to implement those solutions within the next three years. Medium-sized agencies (those with between 101 to 500 full-time sworn officers) were the most likely to execute this move.

This shift is pushing the judiciary鈥檚 hand to follow suit. The indicated that three-quarters of court systems surveyed said they were not using a digital evidence management system, and the majority indicated that physical evidence is still kept onsite 鈥� contributing to storage space shortages for about two-thirds of respondents.

Further, a lack of technology in place for digital evidence viewing in hearings contributed to delays, which then have a domino effect on court dockets 鈥� particularly at the state court level. Despite this, most court modernization efforts are centered around e-filing, facilitating remote hearings, and increasing the use of conferencing software 鈥� with 40% of survey respondents indicating that they had no plans to implement digital evidence systems in the future.

Despite this reluctance, digital evidence systems can be crucial to streamlining record sharing between law enforcement and judiciary systems, without reliance on dated technology like email, USB drives, and CDs or DVDs.

Digital evidence integrity and greater public transparency

Digital evidence management systems also protect evidence integrity and increase transparency across the criminal justice and judiciary systems. An audit of the uncovered more than 90,000 uncategorized digital records. Such uncategorized records are at risk for automatic deletion or can be difficult to find later. Records mismanagement directly impacts access to justice 鈥� in fact, 18 digital records which were permanently deleted directly impacted this past winter.

More importantly, a major time and resource expense for law enforcement agencies relates to digital record redaction and fulfilling open record requests. Now, however, digital management systems are beginning to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to redact personally identifiable data and blur images of minors, which allows for a lower cost and more timely response to record requests.

Finally, digital management systems can better protect evidence integrity and court admissibility of evidence by facilitating automatic file uploads from body and vehicle cameras, limiting access to digital artifacts by role or permission level, , and eliminating the ability to delete or redact videos with ill intent. Systems are not without issues, of course 鈥� a phased rollout of for the North Carolina Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) raised some concerns about judiciary access to evidentiary files prior to hearings. North Carolina AOC staff said they feel that the initial glitches are to be expected, and the positive benefits a modernized system offers will outweigh these setbacks.

Court modernization improves access to justice

The COVID-19 pandemic forced judiciary systems to digitize rapidly. Court systems like the State of Arizona鈥檚 which quickly implemented new digital practices have had results, and the state has been highlighted nationally as a success for its quick shift to remote hearings and digital evidence management. A statewide taskforce鈥檚 recommended shifting 49% of hearing types to allow for remote appearances.

The report also recognizes that the digital divide may impact participation and pose accessibility issues in under-resourced areas and encourages the direction of state resources for both technology and training in those locations. Arizona saw a drop to a low of 13% in failure-to-appear rates, from 40%, in initial eviction hearings . Municipal and county entities nationally mirror the higher failure to appear rate for in-person-only hearings, making this the primary cause of delays within court systems.

Overall, successful implementation of a modernized court system can greatly impact access to justice. In addition to impacting failure-to-appear rates, modernization can also reduce travel time, costs, and lost time from work for attorneys, judiciary staff, witnesses, and defendants.

And while there is still room to improve virtual court proceedings 鈥� including better accommodation of special user audio and visual needs, ensuring that all participants can observe evidence digitally, allowing for private communication between litigants with their counsel, and ensuring that the human factor in hearings is not lost 鈥� progress is being made.

Nationally, the modernization of court systems speaks to a need for judiciary staff and justices that should be continually trained in emerging technology. For example, Arizona leads nationally in this regard with the highest standard for continuing education; and for the past eight years, state judges have been required to spend some of their 16 annual trainings.