In a notable development reflecting the ongoing discourse in the legal community regarding the deployment of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), the supreme courts of Delaware and Georgia have each taken steps to examine and regulate AI’s application within their jurisdictions. These actions, occurring almost simultaneously, underscore the importance of carefully navigating AI’s implications within the legal system.
On October 21, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted an interim policy designed to guide the use of GenAI by judicial officers and court staff. This policy, crafted by the Delaware Commission on Law and Technology, allows judicial personnel, including clerks, interns, and volunteers, to employ GenAI tools, albeit with stringent stipulations. Among the key guidelines are the principles that all GenAI outputs remain the responsibility of the users and that decision-making cannot be outsourced to these tools. Furthermore, the policy emphasizes understanding the capabilities and limitations of GenAI, compliance with existing laws, and prohibitions against inputting sensitive information into non-approved AI tools.
The following day, the Supreme Court of Georgia made appointments to its previously announced Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. This committee—composed mainly of judges, court clerks, and administrators—has been tasked with assessing AI’s impacts on the judicial system, focusing on safeguarding public trust and confidence. Their first meeting took place on October 23, advancing their mission to balance the potential advantages and risks of AI integration in judicial processes.
The actions of both courts highlight the evolving conversation around AI in the judiciary. In Delaware, the establishment of ‘Approved GenAI’ signifies a structured approach to integrating AI tools, underscoring the necessity of ensuring accuracy and legality in AI-aided judicial tasks. In contrast, Georgia’s focus is on evaluating AI’s broader impact on public perception and legal transparency, crucial factors in maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
These initiatives echo a broader trend within the legal profession where the use of AI, while promising efficiencies and novel capabilities, also raises significant challenges regarding ethical considerations, accuracy, and the potential for unintended consequences. Both states are at the forefront of what is likely to be a continued and complex debate over the role of AI in the courts.