Copyright Reuters
Oct 28 (Reuters) - Two federal judges last week admitted to releasing rulings that contained errors generated by artificial intelligence, underscoring a lack of uniform, permanent AI guidelines for U.S. courts as the technology spreads through the legal profession. The flawed decisions should "serve as a wake-up call across the federal judiciary," U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said in a Senate floor speech on Monday. "But if it isn't, I'm here today to give a warning. I'm watching. All of Congress is now watching." Sign up here. Grassley said the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Judicial Conference should swiftly issue specific AI guidelines. "I call on every judge in America ... to take this issue seriously and formalize measures to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their chambers," he said. Federal and state courts nationwide are crafting a patchwork of individual AI guidelines as they weigh the technology's benefits and risks for lawyers, judges and staff. "We're really seeing the policies all over the board right now," said Drew Simshaw, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A growing number of lawyers and litigants have faced hefty fines and other sanctions for failing to verify AI-generated case citations and other material in court papers. Judges have removed lawyers from some cases or referred them for potential disciplinary action. Some courts and judges have issued standing orders or local rules outlining AI policies or reminding lawyers of their existing obligations. There have been "dozens and dozens" of such standing orders since 2023, though the pace has slowed, said Shannon Capone Kirk, who leads advanced e-discovery and AI strategy at law firm Ropes & Gray. The firm maintains an online tracker of orders, rules and decisions on AI use. A growing number of judges are also emphasizing longstanding rules that could help combat AI misuse, Capone Kirk said, such as requiring lawyers to verify the accuracy of their filings. JUDGES FACE SCRUTINY The issue is also now front and center for judges themselves. Responding to an inquiry from Grassley's office, U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey and U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi last week admitted that members of their staff — a law clerk and a law school intern — used AI to help prepare court orders that contained errors. Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed, and Neals said his chambers has adopted a written AI policy "pending definitive guidance" from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A spokesperson for the office declined to share a copy of the memo with Reuters. According to the letter to Grassley, it included suggestions about the "use, procurement, and security of AI tools" and "cautions against delegating core judicial functions to AI." Federal judges have been active in disciplining lawyers for misuse of AI, but they have "not turned that lens inward to examine judges own use," said John Browning, a law professor at Faulkner University and a former justice on Texas' Fifth Court of Appeals. A growing number of state courts systems, meanwhile, have enacted AI policies for judges and court staff in the past year. New York set out a new policy earlier this month, adding to the growing list. The state judicial AI policies typically recognize the "high potential for good and constructive use" of technology while also urging a "trust but verify" approach and highlighting that AI should not substitute judicial decision-making or analysis, Browning said. Reporting by Sara Merken
