In preparing for a webinar on ethics in AI this week, my co-presenter made me aware of a terrific resource: an analysis of AI use in courts.

Responsible AI in Legal Services (RAILS) was launched by the Duke Center on Law & Tech back in January, and it has a steering committee of legal experts, including law firm, corporate, provider and (former) judicial leaders.

Last month, RAILS published an Analysis of AI Use in Courts, which “contains court orders, local rules, and guidelines from the U.S. and other countries. Each document is classified by its particular characteristics, and the tracker allows for search and filtering capabilities based on factors such as jurisdiction, date, and other key terms. The Tracker includes links to original source documents for further reference.”

They add: “Of note: 14 Court Orders and Rules refer to “Artificial Intelligence” generally, rather than Generative A.I. specifically.”

The page containing the Analysis of AI Use in Courts also includes a quote from Judge Paul Grimm, Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute, who notes: “While well intentioned, the sheer number of these orders and lack of uniformity their provisions can cause considerable confusion to litigants and practitioners who may have to appear in many different courts. In this dynamic environment, what is needed is a “one-stop” source for finding all of these orders that will allow litigants and attorneys to make sure they are aware of, and comply with, these court requirements.”

Of course, Judge Grimm (along with Maura R. Grossman and Daniel G. Brown) wrote an article last year titled Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? (covered by me here) which discusses what many (including me) perceive to be an overreaction to some of the recent case filings with bogus information from ChatGPT and other genAI tools.

There are currently 58 entries in the RAILS AI Use in Courts Tracker table, which can be viewed and also downloaded to CSV for further analysis. It provides a terrific analysis of AI use in courts and will be (presumably) updated periodically. Hat tip to Lucian Pera for the heads up on this useful resource!

So, what do you think? Are you surprised there are so many court orders on AI and genAI? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “three robot judges each banging a gavel”.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.