AI use by federal judges is broad but infrequent, new study shows
More than 60% of federal judges who responded to a new study examining their adoption of artificial intelligence reported using at least one tool in their judicial work. (Image from Shutterstock)
More than 60% of federal judges who responded to a new study examining their adoption of artificial intelligence reported using at least one tool in their judicial work.
The study from Northwestern University, which is based on responses from 112 active bankruptcy, magistrate, district court and court of appeals judges, also shows that nearly one in four judges use AI tools on a daily or a weekly basis.
“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first based on a random sample of federal judges regarding their AI use,” said Daniel W. Linna Jr., a senior lecturer and the director of law and technology initiatives at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Illinois, who helped lead the research team.
For the study, judges were asked about their use of six general-purpose large language models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Microsoft’s Copilot. They also were asked about six legal technology platforms, including Thomson Reuters’ CoCounsel and vLex’s Vincent AI.
The judges who responded said they were more likely to use legal tech platforms, the study shows. Thirty percent of judges said they use AI for legal research, while 15.5% said they use the tools to review documents.
The study also gauged whether judges are receiving training on AI tools. More than 45.5% of responding judges said AI training had not been offered by their court administration, while 15.7% said they weren’t certain whether training was available.
When asked about whether they permit AI use in their chambers, one in three judges said yes, the study shows. But 20% of judges said they formally prohibit AI use, and 17.6% discourage its use.
The study also shows that 24.1% of judges do not have an official policy on AI use.
“AI is here; it’s not going anywhere,” said Linna, a 2018 ABA Journal Legal Rebel. “We need training, best practices and clear policies on how the technology is implemented.”
The study was published by the Sedona Conference and lists the New York City Bar Association as a co-publisher.
Law.com has additional coverage.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
