Skip to main content

Artificial Intelligence Resource Library

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think and learn like humans. AI systems can perform tasks that mimic cognitive behavior such as problem-solving, decision-making, and language understanding. AI encompasses a variety of technologies, including machine learning, natural language processing, and robotics.

Artificial intelligence is a rapidly evolving technology that has the potential to profoundly impact the legal system and the practice of law. Legal professionals are already reaping the benefits of AI such as Ohio Legal Help’s guided interview processes for parties seeking a divorce; case management systems with randomized case assignment features; and AI-powered search engines that conduct legal research.

This library is designed to serve as a repository of resources that explore the intersection of AI technology and the legal system. It provides access to scholarly articles, white papers, and practical guides that delve into these advancements.

These resources offer insights into the ethical, regulatory, and practical implications of AI in law. It will help legal professionals explore the potential benefits, challenges, and future trends of AI integration in legal practice to stay informed about the latest developments in this dynamic field.

The resources in this library may become quickly out-of-date due to the changing nature of technology. The Supreme Court will exercise due diligence to keep this resource as current as possible.

The Supreme Court is providing this information as a matter of convenience for judicial officers, court staff, and practitioners.  Attorneys and judicial officers should exercise caution when using AI applications and understand the potential benefits, as well as any unintended consequences that this technology can bring. The Supreme Court is in no way endorsing the use of AI, or the opinions of the sources of these resources.

COURTS

Courts can leverage artificial intelligence to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility in the judicial process. AI can assist in legal research by quickly analyzing large amounts of legal documents, case laws, and statutes, providing judges with relevant information and precedents needed for judicial decision-making. AI-powered tools can help streamline operational tasks and case management functions leading to more efficient operations. It also improves access to justice by offering virtual legal assistance, guided interviews, and chatbots to guide individuals through legal procedures. By integrating AI, courts can streamline operations, reduce backlogs, and ensure more consistent and fair rulings.

  • Jud.Cond.R. 1.2: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” To promote public confidence in the judiciary, a judge’s use of AI should not serve as a substitute for his or her independent judicial judgment when performing judicial duties.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.2: “A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially” and Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(A): “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office . . . without bias or prejudice.” AI tools are known to produce results that can promote stereotypes, reinforce prejudices, or exhibit unfair biases and must be carefully scrutinized by a judge.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.4(B): “A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.” Comment [1] to the rule states, in part, that, “[c]onfidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.” Some results provided by AI, if not carefully scrutinized, could be construed as improper external influence on a judge.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.5(A): “A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently.” Comment [1] states, “[c]ompetence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office.”  Judges, like lawyers, have an ethical duty to keep abreast of evolving technologies, including the possible use of AI tools to aid or assist in the performance of their duties.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.7: “A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge.” A judge has a duty to decide cases without delegating that duty to others. A judge should not delegate judicial decision-making to an AI tool.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.9(A) and(C): “A judge shall not . . . consider ex parte communications or . . . investigate facts in a matter independently.” A judge should not use artificial intelligence tools to independently conduct fact investigations that may result in the judge gaining personal knowledge of disputed facts.  A judge who consults AI regarding a pending matter may be required to disclose that fact to the parties.
  • Jud.Cond.R. 2.10, and 3.5: “A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court” and “[a] judge shall not knowingly disclose or use nonpublic information.”  Judges are exposed to confidential information in the performance of their judicial and administrative duties. A judge should not reveal confidential information through the use of an AI tool that may be viewed by a third-party vendor or other users.

Find Supreme Court courses on artificial intelligence.

ATTORNEYS

The evolution of technology has changed the way attorneys practice law. From legal research to contract analysis, artificial intelligence is transforming how legal professionals work. Long gone are the days of “Shepardizing” cases from hardback books in the law library. Attorneys now rely on AI-powered applications to quickly sift through case law and relevant information. AI is also being used to review and analyze legal documents, document automation, electronic discovery, and compliance monitoring.

  • Prof.Cond.R. 1.1: “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” See Comment 8 concerning the need for lawyers to keep abreast of relevant technology and understand its risks and benefits.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 2.1: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.” A lawyer should not abdicate their independent professional judgement to an AI tool when providing services to client.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 1.6: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law….” Lawyers should use caution not to reveal client-related information when using AI.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 1.4,(a)(2): A lawyer shall “reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.”  Lawyers should consider whether to inform their clients that they are using AI tools in the delivery of legal services.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 1.5: “A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” The use of AI will make lawyers more productive and efficient in the performance of tasks related to client representation resulting in some cases in less billable hours. A lawyer may only bill a client for the work actually performed and not inflate fees.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 3.3: A lawyer shall not knowingly “make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” The use of AI products in legal research by lawyers can result in the production of fictitious case citations and propositions of law. Lawyers have a duty to exercise due diligence in the submission of filings to a court to ensure that case citations are accurate.
  • Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). A lawyer cannot “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” nor “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Lawyers cannot use AI to create correspondence to opposing counsel or responses to discovery requests that are false or misleading.

PUBLIC

Word files may be viewed for free with Office Online.
PDF Files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the Free Acrobat® Reader. Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Inc.