California's courts must adopt AI policies, judicial council says
The California Judicial Council on Friday adopted generative artificial intelligence guidelines for the state’s judges and court employees. (Image from Shutterstock)
The California Judicial Council on Friday adopted generative artificial intelligence guidelines for the state’s judges and court employees.
Under new Rule of Court 10.430, courts that do not prohibit AI must adopt a policy by Dec. 15 that applies to the use of the technology by court staff for any purpose and by judicial officers for any task outside of their adjucative role. The rule applies to the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court.
Reuters, Law.com and Courthouse News Service have coverage.
As directed by California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, an artificial intelligence task force developed and proposed the rule in response to growing public interest in AI and concern about its use by the judicial branch.
Among its provisions, each court’s AI policy should require court staff and judicial officers “who create or use generative AI material to take reasonable steps to verify that the material is accurate, and to take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used.”
Each policy also must “prohibit the entry of confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system” and “require disclosure of the use of or reliance on generative AI if the final version of a written, visual or audio work provided to the public consists entirely of generative AI outputs.”
The California Judicial Council also adopted Standard 10.80, a new standard of judicial administration that sets similar guidelines for judicial officers who uses AI for a task within their adjudicative role. This includes suggesting that judicial officers “consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.”
The artificial intelligence task force did not define what constitutes a judicial officer’s adjudicative role. According to the report that accompanies the new guidelines, judicial officers “are best situated to determine whether a particular task falls within their adjudicative role.”
As reported by Law.com, Brad Hill, administrative presiding justice of the Fifth District Court of Appeal and head of the task force, told the California Judicial Council at its meeting on Friday that the new guidelines are meant to address the risks of AI rather than permit or prohibit its specific uses.
“The task force determined the courts are in the best position to identify acceptable uses of generative AI to meet the specific needs that they have, such as how the technology can safely be used to assist with administrative tasks,” Hill reportedly said.
In February, the artificial intelligence task force released a model policy for the use of generative AI. It said in its report accompanying the new guidelines that it can serve as a resource for courts who plan to permit the use of the technology.
California’s state court system is now the largest in the country to adopt AI rules or policies, Reuters reports. It joins several other states, including Illinois, Delaware and Arizona.
New York, Georgia and Connecticut are currently considering rules that address the use of AI for court-related work, Reuters also reports.
California’s adopted rule and standard go into effect on Sept. 1.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
