Cal courts approve new rules for use of artificial intelligence

Alan Riquelmy

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Many courts across California wanted guidance from the state’s Judicial Council about the use of artificial intelligence.

On Friday, the council provided it, passing new rules for how the Golden State’s court system should handle generative AI.

Called GenAI, the technology can respond to human prompts, writing poetry, essays and legal documents. The council wanted to create guidance for its use in judicial settings, both for court staff and judges. Months of meetings led to Friday's passage of those rules at the council’s regular meeting.

They become effective in September, though courts that allow the use of AI must adopt a use policy by Dec. 15.

“You’ll have to bear with me, because this subject matter is very, very dense,” said Justice Brad Hill, with the state’s Fifth Appellate District and chair of the Artificial Intelligence Task Force.

It’s also changing quickly. Hill quipped that experts can predict a new AI ability will come online in two years, only to change their mind over a few months and say it’s happening next week.

That’s why his task force opted against recommending the prohibition of GenAI, as it changes rapidly, and instead ensure its use is safe and transparent.

The council adopted a rule and a standard, which differ slightly but share many aspects. The rule is for court staff and judges who use AI outside of an adjudicative role. The standard applies to judges using the technology in an adjudicative situation.

Both prohibit providing GenAI with personal information, like driver’s license numbers.

“Anything a user inputs into the system is often used to train the system,” Hill said.

The technology shouldn’t be used to impose bias or discrimination. Users also must review and correct errors made by AI, like hallucinations — false information given by an AI such as a fake case citation.

Under the rule, a disclosure must be made for visual, written or audio that’s publicly accessible and that AI played a role in creating. When used by a judge in an adjudicative role, they should consider if a disclosure noting AI was used is needed for publicly available documents.

“Stay tuned,” Hill said. “We have more work to do, but we think that this is a good starting point.”

In addition to approving the new rule and standard, the council also heard updates about ongoing efforts to modernize the state’s court system at all levels.

Charles Johnson, clerk and executive officer with the First Appellate District, noted that the monthly cost to store physical records for his court had reached $4,000.

Law requires the maintenance of criminal records for 75 years. They kept piling up.

That’s one reason why the appeals court sought, and gained, a grant through the state Judicial Council’s information technology modernization program. The money enabled that court to digitize its paper records, scanning upward of 16.5 million documents.

“Those paper records come with challenges,” Johnson said.

Johnson and others shared technology upgrade success stories with the council, which a few years ago received funding for the grant program that makes the technology upgrades possible.

Judge Kyle Brodie, with San Bernardino Superior Court and chair of the council’s Technology Committee, said the council has some $12.5 million in grant dollars each year. There’s always more demand than supply. Last year, the council received $63 million in grant requests.

According to Johnson, his grant not only enabled the digitization of records, it opened up courthouse space and provided thousands of dollars in savings, as his court no longer needed offsite storage space.

It also gave the public immediate, online access to court records.