As AI becomes integral to judicial workflows, courts must implement these tools responsibly to preserve integrity, independence, and sound adjudication; and a new framework from Judge Scott Schlegel offers practical guidance for courts to harness AI's strengths while maintaining human judgment and oversight
Key insights:
-
-
-
Stewardship over speed — Courts shouldn’t rush to adopt AI; they should implement it deliberately with policies, training, and review protocols that align with judicial ethics.
-
Human judgment is non‑negotiable — AI can streamline research and drafting, but interpretation, credibility assessments, proportionality, and equitable discretion must remain human — and handled by the right person at the right decision points.
-
Phased, role‑aware integration — A practical, 10‑phase framework enables incremental adoption across varying readiness levels, emphasizing clear boundaries, verification of outputs, confidentiality controls, and accountability to preserve judicial integrity.
-
-
As AI moves from novelty to infrastructure in professional practice, courts face a pivotal question — not whether to use AI, but rather how to implement these tools responsibly.
Judge Scott Schlegel of Louisiana’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has become a careful and credible voice in this conversation. Drawing on active judicial experience, Judge Schlegel has published practical guidance and suggested guardrails in a new paper, AI in Chambers: A Framework for Judicial AI Use.
In a recent discussion, he outlined how courts can harness AI’s strengths without compromising the integrity, independence, and wisdom that define sound adjudication.
Why is this framework needed now?
AI’s rapid evolution presents both opportunity and risk. According to Judge Schlegel, technology has reached a stage in which judges must exercise independent judgment in deciding how and when to deploy advanced technology. The judiciary need not be first to adopt new tools; rather, it must be right in how it adopts them. That measured stance reframes innovation as a matter of judicial craft — the question is not speed, but stewardship.
Judge Schlegel’s 10‑phase implementation framework is built from lessons learned in chambers, not a laboratory. Its purpose is to help courts establish boundaries, define roles, and stage adoption in a way that is consistent with judicial ethics and institutional realities. The framework provides a clear on‑ramp for courts at different levels of readiness, emphasizing that successful integration is a process, not a single event.
The initial step, as Judge Schlegel describes, is deceptively simple. “Step 1 is the most important, and that is to do your job,” he writes. AI can accelerate tasks such as drafting or research triage, but it cannot — and must not — replace the uniquely human functions of judging. Interpretation, deliberation, credibility assessments, proportionality, and the exercise of equitable discretion remain irreducibly human. Properly implemented, AI frees judges and chambers staff to focus more attention on those human functions rather than less.
Having the right human in the loop
Much commentary urges keeping a human in the loop; however, Judge Schlegel suggests going further, emphasizing the need to place the right human at the right points in the workflow. Not every participant in chambers must or should use AI for every task. The key is calibrated involvement: Identify decision nodes in which human judgment is critical, and ensure those decisions are made by the appropriate judicial officer or trained staff member. In other words, governance is not satisfied by mere human presence, rather it requires intentional role design and accountability.
Judge Schlegel further cautions against universal, simultaneous adoption. Not every judge needs to begin using AI immediately. However, what every court does need is a shared foundation — policies, training, and review protocols — that clarifies those tasks in which AI belongs, where it does not, and how outputs will be verified. His framework is designed to be accessible and scalable, and able to support judges who are early in their learning curve as well as more advanced users that wish to experiment within defined guardrails.
Guardrails that preserve judicial integrity
Responsible implementation turns on a few themes that run through Judge Schlegel’s framework. Verification requires structured review of AI outputs, including fact‑checking and citation validation, before those outputs can influence judicial reasoning or orders. Confidentiality and privilege demand clear limits on what materials may be processed by AI tools and under what data‑handling terms, particularly situations in which sensitive information or sealed records are involved. Finally, training and change management matter because effective adoption strongly depends on equipping judges and staff with the skills to use AI judiciously and to recognize where it could potentially fail.
Overall, treating AI as a shiny new tool is less helpful than recognizing it as a set of capabilities that, when properly governed, can expand a court’s capacity to deliver timely, well‑reasoned justice. The goal is not to automate judgment, but to support it. When AI accelerates routine drafting or organizes complex records more efficiently, chamber staff can devote more attention to the hard work that only people can do, such as weighing credibility, interpreting precedent, crafting remedies, and explaining decisions in ways that foster public trust.
Moving forward
Judicial adoption of AI will be judged not by novelty but by fidelity to first principles. Judge Schlegel’s message is clear: Courts do not need to be first, but they must get it right.
A phased framework, as he outlines, that dictates the placement of the right humans at the right points, and a disciplined focus on the core judicial function, when taken together, can provide a path for responsible integration. With those commitments in place, AI can help courts do more of what matters most — delivering justice that is timely, transparent, and trustworthy.
You can find out more about how courts are managing their transition to a more AI-driven environment here
