The courts, however, remain relatively impervious to one of the hottest forms of technology known to humanity.
That’s according to a report from the Thomson Reuters Institute, which offers analysis centered around governmental, legal and other issues. Along with an AI policy consortium, it found scant use of AI in state, county and municipal courts — along with AI-related fears that are relatively specific to the justice system.
A mere 17 percent of respondents said their courts used generative AI, according to online surveys conducted this spring of 443 judges and court professionals.
Strikingly, 68 percent of those courts reported staffing shortages, with that number reaching 71 percent when limited to typically better-funded state courts.
AI growth looms, though, as the survey found that 17 percent of courts plan to deploy generative AI in the next year — though, even if that happens, it indicates just more than one-third of U.S. courts would be using artificial intelligence.
Some courts have taken steps toward AI, yet the report found that 70 percent of respondents said “their courts are currently not allowing employees to use AI-based tools for court business.”
Any wise business operator will tell you that every problem is an opportunity, and that’s how the report frames the low use of AI in U.S. courts. Artificial intelligence, according to the report, can help courts “manage workloads while maintaining service quality.”
Staffing shortages will continue in the next year, at least according to 61 percent of survey respondents.
And 46 percent said shortages of skilled court workers “will have a transformational impact on courts in the next five years.”
That means long hours and the risk of burnout — 53 percent of respondents work between 40 and 45 hours per week, with an additional 38 percent putting in more than 46 hours. Even with such toil, only 53 percent said they have enough time to complete their tasks — the tension is especially acute with case management and case preparation work.
With caseloads getting heavier and legal issues becoming more complex, 24 percent of respondents said case delays are becoming more common.
Generative AI, though, received high marks from the few court professionals who have used it, with it described as potentially “having a transformational or high impact on courts over the next five years.”
Respondents anticipate that the use of generative AI could save those workers almost three hours of labor per week — with that figure rising to nine hours in the next five years.
“As the report points out, we’re facing challenges — staff don’t think they have enough time to meet their demands, and they’re working more hours to get the work done, and that’s leading to burnout,” said David Slayton, executive officer and clerk of court for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, as quoted in the report. “It’s incumbent on court leaders to really think about how technology can help us with this problem.”
Even so, concerns are significant — as is the case in law enforcement, where controversy over the growing use of AI is increasing as funding flows into the wider justice and public safety space.
For instance, 35 percent of respondents worry that use of AI “will lead to an overreliance on technology over skill,” while 25 percent fear that AI will lead to counterfeit orders and evidence, and other “malicious” results.
Only 9 percent, by comparison, worried about losing their jobs to AI.
