Mass. Courts Explore AI Efficiency and Ethics

The Massachusetts judiciary is carefully embracing artificial intelligence (AI) as part of an endeavor to make courtrooms more accessible. Chief Justice Kimberly Budd, in her recent State of the Judiciary speech, emphasized the significant potential of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to streamline many aspects of judicial and legal work. However, she also highlighted the numerous questions and concerns regarding reliability, confidentiality, and costs associated with integrating this technology into courtrooms.

Amid the enthusiastic outlook towards GenAI, Budd noted the critical need to ensure that its adoption does not undermine judicial independence or erode public confidence in the judicial process. The judiciary has proactively consulted the court’s Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct to evaluate whether the current rules addressing attorneys’ use of GenAI are adequate. While the committee did not suggest immediate changes, it recognized the possibility for future updates as technology progresses.

The Supreme Judicial Court has also introduced interim guidelines to direct judges and court personnel in their use of GenAI. Currently, this technology is limited to administrative tasks, and only public information can be utilized. Importantly, the AI tools employed cannot retain or utilize any data input to train the programs, ensuring a layer of confidentiality in their application.

Budd described these guidelines as a “modest first step” necessary for integrating GenAI into court operations while keeping an eye on its evolving nature. A particular focus of the Access to Justice Commission is to explore ways GenAI could enhance access to legal resources for those unable to afford lawyers, thereby minimizing cost disparities in the legal system.

Nationwide, the adoption of AI in the courts lags behind the private sector. A May report from the Thomas Reuters Institute and the National Center for State Courts indicated that only 34% of surveyed courts have used or plan to adopt GenAI within the year. Concerns regarding over-reliance on AI and the potential for malicious exploitation, such as the creation of false evidence, were voiced. Despite these concerns, many respondents recognized AI’s ability to improve efficiency, estimating time savings of up to three hours weekly over the coming year.

Ultimately, Chief Justice Budd reaffirmed that the legal system must remain grounded in human intelligence, understanding, and judgment, underscoring the essential role of the people within the judiciary.