In a move reflecting the growing intersection of law and technology, the Delaware Supreme Court announced new rules governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by judges and court staff. While allowing the use of AI tools, the court set clear boundaries to ensure accuracy and accountability in official duties.
Under this interim policy, court personnel and judicial officers are advised to “exercise caution” when using generative AI. Any AI tools employed must first be approved by the court’s administrative body, and users remain responsible for the accuracy of their work. Crucially, the policy emphasizes that decision-making authority cannot be delegated to AI systems.
Delaware Supreme Court Justice Karen Valihura, co-chair of the Delaware Commission on Law and Technology, highlighted both the potential benefits and risks of AI integration. “While AI offers opportunities for increased efficiency, there are potential pitfalls that require clear guidelines. This interim policy provides judges and staff with the necessary guardrails,” Valihura said in a statement.
The court’s policy also mandates training for any individual intending to use AI tools in their work. This cautious approach reflects the rapidly evolving nature of AI, as courts, law firms, and corporate legal teams across the country continue to navigate the implications of this emerging technology. The Delaware Supreme Court has kept its policy deliberately concise, aiming to adapt as AI technologies develop further.
Delaware’s initiative is part of a larger trend, with other courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court, establishing committees to examine AI’s impact on the legal system. These efforts signal a recognition of AI’s growing influence while acknowledging the need for oversight in its application within the judicial process.
Read more:
Panel Recommends No Change To Courtroom Camera Ban Despite Push For Transparency
UK Law Firm Partners Now Charging Over £1,000 Per Hour Amid Competitive Pressures
Court Affirms Trespassing Charges Against January 6 Defendants