Courts must develop comprehensive, role-specific AI training programs for all staff in order to successfully integrate AI into judicial operations while maintaining fairness and accountability
Key takeaways:
-
-
-
Establish core AI competencies for all court personnel— Every court staff member needs foundational skills in data literacy, critical evaluation of AI outputs, ethical and legal knowledge, human-AI teaming, and cybersecurity.
-
Create role-specific training pathways— Judges need skills in assessing AI evidence admissibility, while administrators require workflow integration expertise.
-
Implement comprehensive change management from the start— Success depends on strong leadership commitment, clear communication about AI’s purpose and boundaries, and stakeholder engagement through feedback loops and user councils.
-
-
With AI’s growing potential to improve the nation’s court operations, the success of this advance technology is dependent upon the readiness of those who use it. Unfortunately, many courts lack comprehensive strategies to prepare their workforce for this digital transformation. Yet, only by providing a systematic approach to building AI literacy across all court staff — which includes ensuring that judges, clerks, court administrators, and support staff possess the knowledge, skills, and ethical framework necessary to take advantage of AI’s potential — can courts expect to see the fruits of these efforts.
Defining the core competencies for all court staff
The first step to embedding AI literacy into the courts is establishing clear competency frameworks and ensuring consistent training outcomes across all court personnel. Core competencies should anchor every role’s development path, highlighting major areas of knowledge, including:
-
-
- Data literacy — This encompasses understanding data sources and determining quality assessment, bias detection, and lineage tracking to enable courts to use data-driven insights.
- Critical evaluation of AI outputs — This involves identifying verification protocols, recognizing system limitations and error patterns, and interpreting confidence measures to maintain judicial accuracy.
- Ethical and legal knowledge — This covers determining due process requirements, transparency obligations, explainability standards, privacy protection, and bias mitigation strategies that preserve justice system integrity.
- Human-AI teaming skills — This involves determining when to trust AI recommendations compared to human oversight, plus the abilities to conduc proper documentation and audit trail maintenance for accountability.
- Cybersecurity — This ensures secure handling of sensitive case data, AI prompts, and system outputs.
-
Establishing role-specific AI competencies
To successfully integrate AI into workflows, as a next step courts must establish clear, role-specific AI literacy requirements tailored to each position’s unique responsibilities. For example, judges need competencies in assessing AI-derived evidence admissibility, applying appropriate reliance thresholds for AI outputs, and supervising AI writing aids while maintaining personal accountability for judicial reasoning.
Likewise, court clerks require practical training in AI-powered scheduling, document management, and data analsis tools; while court administrators must develop skills in workflow integration, data quality stewardship, and vendor evaluation against security and bias criteria. Further, IT personnel need advanced capabilities in AI deployment, maintenance, and cybersecurity to support these technologies effectively.
The first step to embedding AI literacy into the courts is establishing clear competency frameworks and ensuring consistent training outcomes across all court personnel.
Courts should create structured AI literacy pathways that define required competency levels at specific career milestones from initial hiring to promotion thresholds as well. This milestone-based approach enables employees to develop appropriate AI skills progressively as both their responsibilities grow and court technology adoption expands.
Implementation of these pathways requires updating both hiring practices and ongoing professional development programs to reflect new knowledge requirements for AI. Job descriptions and recruitment strategies must be revised to attract candidates with relevant AI skills while expanding outreach to build diverse talent pools. Courts should then design comprehensive training programs that deliver role-appropriate AI education through on-boarding processes, dedicated training events, continuing education opportunities, and on-the-job experience.
A new AI Readiness guide for courts, created by the National Center for State Court, provides more details on how to establish role-based skills and how to embed them throughout employees’ career life-cycle not matter the role.
Additional considerations
In addition, successful AI integration also requires comprehensive change management strategies implemented from the very beginning of any upskilling initiative. This process must begin with thorough stakeholder mapping to identify those key champions who will advocate for AI adoption, skeptics who may resist change, and the specific workflows that will be impacted by adoption of any new technologies.
A robust communication plan is equally essential. Indeed, clear and frequent messaging explains the purpose of AI tools and their benefits to court operations, while establishing boundaries for their use and the safeguards to be put in place to protect judicial integrity.
An additional element of the change management program is that courts need to establish effective feedback loops and metrics to align with performance goals in order to maintain accountability. For example, courts should ensure that input from users is reported back to court leadership, and they should create user councils and anonymous reporting channels. Courts should also hold quarterly gatherings to address concerns and establish ownership of AI training initiatives at all levels of the organization.
An additional element of the change management program is that courts need to establish effective feedback loops and metrics to align with performance goals in order to maintain accountability.
Likewise, the success of any judicial AI upskilling program fundamentally depends on strong leadership commitment and visible championship of AI education initiatives. Leaders must first establish a clear vision and guardrails by articulating how AI tools align with the court’s mission and constitutional principles. And this commitment must be demonstrated through modeling behaviors, with judicial leaders completing training programs themselves, using AI tools responsibly in their own work, and openly sharing lessons learned with their teams.
Finally, effective leadership requires strategic resource allocation that ensures governance alignment by embedding AI education into strategic plans, continuing judicial education requirements, and performance evaluation frameworks.
To create AI skills based on roles, courts need a disciplined plan and the will to follow it. By defining shared competencies, tailoring role-based learning, and backing change with clear communication, metrics, and leadership, courts can introduce AI without compromising their independence, fairness, or accountability. Indeed, starting small, measuring rigorously, iterating transparently, and centering human judgment at every step are core elements of the blueprint — and now is the moment to put it to work.
To get started, check out these AI literacy role-based learning programs created by the National Center for State Court-Thomson Reuters Institute AI Policy Consortium
