What is California doing?

With the introduction of AI in the legal sector, many lawyers and ethicists alike have expressed concern about the adequacy of guardrails designed to protect the rights of human beings. Recently, however, California has taken a step forward in that regard by designing a preview of a new model policy that outlines safeguards and guidelines for the use of generative AI by courts. This pioneering initiative spearheaded by California would reimagine how our legal system will operate now and in the future.

What is included in the policy model?

Created by the Chief Justice of the San Francisco Judicial Council in May 2024, the policy model outlines an Artificial Intelligence Task Force charged with:

  • Overseeing the development of policy recommendations regarding the use of AI in the judicial branch
  • Coordinating development of proposals and potential judicial branch actions
  • Developing its own proposal and coordinating with other government or judicial branch entities in order to further advance AI policy

The task force members included Justices, attorneys, and court executive officers alike to carry out these responsibilities.

In September 2024, the task force surveyed all trial courts, appellate courts, and Supreme Court in California about Generative AI use (Judicial Branch of California 2025). In the survey, it was found that among 45 courts, 38 courts are using or plan to use generative AI in the near future while the remaining 7 did not answer. Notably, most courts were hesitant to develop their own policies and preferred to wait for a standardized model policy, citing concerns about overlooking critical legal or ethical issues.

In order to address this concern, the task force created a template that courts could use in order to create a generative AI use policy. This optional template could be modified in order to address special goals and comply with a specific planned rule of court. The template included applied use cases for court staff and judicial officers for any court-related task. What is important to note is that the model did not require the court to permit generative AI use; instead, the template highlighted key considerations, safeguards, and best practices for courts to evaluate how generative AI can be used responsibly and ethically. The model incorporates core AI ethics principles, including privacy, accountability, bias mitigation, and transparency.

Although the policy model for generative AI use is available now, the generative AI use policies for rule of court and judicial administration is set to be completed by September 2025. By the end of the year, the Judicial Council hopes to fully integrate this AI reform. The model also allocated funding for ASL certification, court interpreter services, lactation spaces, and partial restoration of trial court operations.

What are other states doing?

California isn’t the only state making big policy changes—other states have started to make moves. 

States like Texas and Illinois have issued rulings or standing orders on generative AI use (Thomson Reuters 2023). The court rules that if an attorney uses generative AI, he or she must also notify the court of their use in detail. The court then has the responsibility to review and confirm the accuracy of the work done. Some courts have even required for the attorney to specifically annotate any information that was gathered by AI for the judge to review.

Other states like Nevada have also created a reference sheet for attorneys who are new to generative AI (Nevada Judiciary 2025). The guide includes definitions of what generative AI encompasses while providing surface-level suggestions of what courts should do in response to AI. Unlike California, Nevada does not have a task force to plan more in-depth policy and to respond to concerns and developments. 

However, California is the only one to this date to standardize judiciary-focused AI policy that mandates adoption of AI rules at a court-level. 

Does this problem solve the underlying problem?

Although the policy model is a step in the right direction, many attorneys are still concerned about the potential of overreliance of AI tools. Some attorneys have even drafted reports about potential abuse of AI, citing that attorneys may feel compelled by the allure of AI writing their briefs and judicial orders in mere minutes (JD SUPRA 2025). This concern highlights a broader tension of whether AI will enhance legal practice or undermine it by encouraging shortcuts.

These concerns are not unfounded. In recent years, cases like Mata v. Avianca, Inc have shown the possibilities of improper use of generative AI among lawyers (JUSTIA 2023). This case involved a lawyer who submitted filings that were created by generative AI, and was found to have incorrect and hallucinated case citations and opinions. The case ended with sanctions against the attorney as well as a mandated apology. Many attorneys, in response to this case, advocated for the ban of Artificial Intelligence in order to avoid this entirely.

However, what California has accomplished is majoritively what all AI ethicists have wanted: actual documentation of ethical practices regarding AI while also enacting actual enforcers to keep AI in check. California has realized that while AI does have disadvantages, the technology offers significant opportunities for the legal sector to pass up. Whether other US states will follow suit remains to be seen.