Image description


We recently had the opportunity to attend CLCT, and the experience left us encouraged by the thoughtful discussions surrounding artificial intelligence and its role in the judiciary.


For those unfamiliar, the Center for Legal & Court Technology (CLCT) is a joint initiative of William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts, dedicated to improving the administration of justice through technology. This year's conference brought together judges, court administrators, technologists, and industry professionals to discuss the opportunities and challenges surrounding AI in the judiciary. While the conversations covered a wide range of topics, three key takeaways stood out to us.


1. Transcripts, Not Judgments

The consensus was refreshingly clear: AI has a valuable role in the courtroom, whether that's producing first-draft transcripts, improving judicial writing, or assisting with administrative tasks.


However, there was equally strong agreement that AI should not be responsible for interpreting evidence or making judicial decisions.


AI should assist judges, not replace their judgment.


2. Local, Not Cloud

One of the most prominent themes was the importance of data sovereignty and intelligence independence.


Several jurisdictions shared examples of locally deployed AI tools, ranging from formatting case data for integration with case management systems to searching complex legal knowledge bases.


Interestingly, cost savings weren't the primary motivation. Instead, judges expressed concerns about how sensitive court data might be used by cloud-based AI providers, particularly when it comes to training future models.


For courts, maintaining control over their data isn't simply a preference. It's a fundamental responsibility.


3. Enhancement, Not Replacement

Perhaps our favorite takeaway was the recognition that AI doesn't necessarily need to save time to provide value.


Judge Scott Schlegel of Louisiana's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal noted that AI tools can improve the quality of judicial writing by identifying errors and producing more accurate legal research results, even when they don't meaningfully reduce the time required.


The goal isn't to replace court staff or automate every process. It's to give the people responsible for administering justice better tools to do their jobs.


Looking Ahead

Woven throughout these discussions was a larger concern about judicial autonomy and ensuring that technology never supersedes human authority.


What impressed us most was that these conversations weren't driven by either the promise or the fear of AI. They were driven by careful consideration of its practical applications, limitations, and responsibilities.


While the adoption of AI in courts won't be without challenges, we're encouraged by the thoughtful approach many jurisdictions are already taking.


At Liberty Recording, we look forward to supporting courts as they navigate this transition, with an emphasis on preserving the independence, integrity, and control that our judicial institutions require.