The Order of Work: Automation to Judgment
This article builds on my earlier guide, AI in Chambers: A Framework for Judicial AI Use. That guide focused on how individual judges can responsibly integrate generative AI in chambers. This one extends to the court itself and lays out how courts can also build an architecture that uses GenAI tools.
The next evolution in court technology is not another case management system. It is an API that connects to existing case management systems and runs automated checks, links the record, and enables AI tools at specific workflow stages.
Every filing with the clerk must first be run through a series of automated mechanical checks to verify compliance with procedural rules, page limits, and deadlines. The system would also perform a cite check of every brief and link each citation to the underlying opinion or exhibit in the record. Machines excel here because the work is routine, rule-bound, and objective.
Once the record is verified, the system pauses. No further tools activate until the reviewer (this could be central staff or the law clerk) confirms that they have considered the pleadings and completed an initial analysis. This confirmation is mandatory. It ensures that human judgment initiates the next process and that no AI assistance beyond basic automation is used until the reviewer certifies that they are ready to proceed.
Upon confirmation, a comprehensive set of support tools becomes accessible for organizing the case. These generative AI tools can generate timelines, summarize transcripts and filings, compile a list of the assignments of error, or synthesize key facts from the record. Additionally, they can produce a neutral bench memo that succinctly encapsulates the pertinent issues, facts, and arguments without offering any conclusions. This bench memo would serve as an informative document, providing the judge with a solid foundation.
Consider a summary judgment motion in a commercial dispute. The system verifies the filing complies with local rules, confirms all cited cases are accurately referenced, and links each citation. After the clerk reviews the parties’ briefs and certifies initial analysis is complete, the system unlocks tools that can generate a timeline of the disputed contractual performance, lay out the competing arguments, and compile a list of exhibits with a brief summary of each. The system does not evaluate the merits of the pleadings. Instead, it organizes the record so the judge can.
Once the record is organized and a neutral bench memorandum is in hand, the next step is a conversation with the judge, who has also reviewed the record, to set the preliminary direction, explain the reasoning, and decide whether drafting assistance is appropriate. Only then should the system unlock the drafting tools.
These tools do not craft decisions. They help express what the judge has already decided, matching the judge’s tone, rhythm, and preferred style. Prior opinions can serve as reference models, allowing drafts that feel familiar while remaining fully open to human revision.
Before finalizing any draft, an internal GPT trained exclusively on the court’s prior opinions would be run for a final consistency check. Chambers can query it: Have we addressed this issue before? What did we hold? Is this draft consistent? The system surfaces relevant dispositions, not to dictate outcomes, but to prevent the court from unknowingly reversing itself or creating conflicting guidance for lower courts and litigants.
This is institutional memory as a safeguard. Even vigilant judges can miss prior unpublished dispositions in high-volume courts. The internal GPT provides a last defense against doctrinal drift before it becomes precedent. The judge still decides whether the prior case controls, whether it should be distinguished, or whether, after careful thought, it should be overruled or clarified. The system ensures that choice is made consciously, not by accident.
The Architecture of Justice
This next layer of judicial technology requires a disciplined sequence. Automation handles the mechanical work. Human confirmation ensures accountability. Structured tools organize the record and craft neutral bench memoranda. Drafting aid comes only after the judge sets direction. Each step echoes the safeguards in AI in Chambers and scales them to the institutional level.
Start Small
Begin with limited matters like writ applications and interlocutory rulings. Current tools are not yet ready for complex appeals or lengthy records. These focused use cases enable controlled testing, thorough documentation, and steady refinement before broader expansion.
Our task is not to make machines mimic judges. It is to ensure that judges, supported by GenAI tools, remain deliberate.
