The 11th Circuit’s Experiment with AI: Balancing Innovation and Judicial Integrity
In a recent case, a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a concurring opinion that has sparked a thought-provoking discussion about the role of AI in the judicial system. The judge explored the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT to help define the term “landscaping” in an insurance dispute. While the idea of integrating advanced technology into legal interpretation is fascinating and aligns with my enthusiasm for modernizing the justice system, it raises significant concerns about the propriety and fairness of such practices in real cases.
The Judge’s Approach: Exploring AI in Legal Interpretation
In the case of James Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, the judges were asked to consider the “ordinary meaning” of “landscaping” within the context of an insurance policy. Faced with ambiguous dictionary definitions, one of the judges on the panel decided to consult ChatGPT for help with the interpretation. The LLM appears to have provided a sensible definition that included both natural and artificial modifications to outdoor spaces for aesthetic or practical purposes. Encouraged by this, the judge further queried whether installing an in-ground trampoline could be considered landscaping. ChatGPT’s response affirmed this possibility, suggesting that such an installation alters the appearance and function of an outdoor area, fitting within the broader concept of landscaping.
While the Court ultimately resolved the case without relying on the LLM’s input, the concurring opinion highlighted the intriguing potential of using AI to assist in legal interpretation. This approach, however, also raises important questions about the appropriateness of using such tools in judicial decision-making. With that said, I appreciate this judge’s willingness to discuss his experiment with all of us. It is an important discussion that we must have out loud.
My Perspective: Balancing Innovation with Judicial Integrity
As someone deeply invested in leveraging technology to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system, I appreciate the innovative thinking behind the judge’s consideration of LLMs. AI can undoubtedly offer valuable insights and streamline certain aspects of legal research. My commitment, though, to the rules and integrity of the judicial process outweighs the allure of this type of experimentation in real cases at this point in our AI journey. Judges are bound by rules of evidence and judicial conduct that dictate what sources we can consult before reaching a decision. Traditional dictionaries are permissible, while unconventional sources like Wikipedia and Google are generally not. Thus, the use of an LLM would fall, in my estimation, outside these established rules and could undermine the perceived integrity of the judicial process.
Fundamental to our justice system is the principle that both parties have the opportunity to contest and contribute to the evidence and interpretations that the court relies upon. Using an LLM without giving parties a chance to weigh in could violate this principle and lead to questions about the fairness of the decision-making process. Some might even argue that consulting with an LLM is an ex parte communication. Remember, judges are expected to base their decisions solely on the evidence admitted and arguments presented by the parties. Introducing external sources, such as an LLM’s output, could blur the lines between the roles of judges and advocates, potentially compromising judicial objectivity. Going outside of these boundaries—whether by consulting ChatGPT, Google Maps, YouTube, or any other external source—risks undermining the foundational principles of our legal system.
While the potential benefits of AI in the judicial process are significant, it is crucial to proceed with caution and prioritize adherence to established rules of evidence and conduct. If judges intend to use LLMs in their decision-making process, courts should first establish a legal framework that clearly outlines when and how AI tools can be used and ensures parties have the opportunity to respond before a decision is made. Additionally, providing judges with comprehensive training on the capabilities and limitations of AI tools will help them use these technologies appropriately and responsibly.
