Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr utilized his annual year end report to provide perspective on the influence of artificial intelligence on the legal profession. He stated his belief that while AI will not supplant human judges, it will undeniably transform their responsibilities.
“As 2023 draws to a close with breathless predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder whether judges are about to become obsolete,” the Chief Justice wrote. “I am sure we are not — but equally confident that technological changes will continue to transform our work.”
Each year, the Chief Justice dedicates his report to a significant issue pertinent to the entire federal court system. This year, the focus was AI, specifically addressing the question of whether it could eventually replace judges. His core conclusion was clear: “Machines cannot fully replace key actors in court.”
Roberts offered a parallel to professional tennis, where optical technology has replaced human line judges to determine the placement of high speed serves. He noted that in such instances, “There is no discretion; the ball either did or did not hit the line.”
However, the Chief Justice emphasized that for trial judges, the subtleties of human interaction are crucial. “Much can turn on a shaking hand, a quivering voice, a change of inflection, a bead of sweat, a moment’s hesitation, a fleeting break in eye contact. And most people still trust humans more than machines to perceive and draw the right inferences from these clues.”
Similarly, appellate judges also execute “quintessentially human functions,” Roberts wrote. Their determinations frequently hinge on whether a lower court has exercised an appropriate degree of discretion or involve questions concerning the necessary development of the law. “AI is based largely on existing information, which can inform but not make such decisions.”
Significant Impact on the Judiciary
Despite confirming the enduring presence of “human judges will be around for a while,” the Chief Justice acknowledged that AI will have a substantial effect on the judiciary.
“
$$W$$
ith equal confidence I predict that judicial work — particularly at the trial level — will be significantly affected by AI. Those changes will involve not only how judges go about doing their job, but also how they understand the role that AI plays in the cases that come before them.”
Roberts predicted that this impact is likely to be beneficial in several respects. Among these benefits, he highlighted that AI applications “indisputably assist” the judicial system in advancing the objective of the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of cases.
Furthermore, Roberts believes AI holds great promise for enhancing access to justice. “For those who cannot afford a lawyer, AI can help. It drives new, highly accessible tools that provide answers to basic questions, including where to find templates and court forms, how to fill them out, and where to bring them for presentation to the judge — all without leaving home. These tools have the welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system.”
A History of Technology Adoption
While the report primarily addresses advanced AI, Roberts began with a look back at the adoption of technology within the federal courts. He pointed out that it was not until 1989 that the judicial branch finally supplied personal computers to secretaries in judges’ chambers and ensured that at least one personal computer was available for shared use by each judge’s law clerks.
The Supreme Court experienced a slow but steady integration of computers, Roberts recalled. “In 1976, Justice Lewis Powell deployed a rented Wang computer in his chambers. Several other Justices observed the satisfactory performance of this newfangled ‘word processing machine’ and followed suit the next year.”
By the year 2000, however, “change came fast” to the federal courts. “The paper world familiar to lawyers for centuries had largely given way to today’s electronic regime.”
“And now,” the report continued, “we face the latest technological frontier: artificial intelligence.” Roberts noted that AI can achieve a grade of B on law school examinations and successfully pass the bar exam. He suggested that legal research “may soon be unimaginable without it.”
However, Roberts also cautioned that the implementation of AI demands prudence and modesty. He mentioned its tendency to generate false information, its potential to jeopardize client confidentiality, and the due process implications surrounding its use in criminal proceedings.
The Chief Justice concluded his report by commending the “skilled and dedicated information systems professionals” who provide essential support to the courts. “Gone are the days when the quill pen alone was sufficient to maintain a docket; courts could not do our work without technologists and cybersecurity experts in the Department of Technology Services at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, at the circuit wide level, and in individual courts.”
