Highlights
Most courts already use AI in administrative systems, often without realizing its presence.
The challenge is shifting from AI adoption to responsible implementation that meets justice standards.
State, county, and municipal court systems stand at a pivotal moment. As the last Baby Boomer professionals retire, a new generation of digitally-native leaders are taking the helm. This generational shift comes at a critical time—while courts desperately need technological modernization to address efficiency challenges, they’re grappling with legitimate concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) integration.
Many court systems still operate with outdated document management systems or traditional filing methods, creating bottlenecks that impede justice delivery. Yet our research reveals that court respondents approach AI technology with particular caution—more than any other legal sector surveyed. Thirty-one percent of court professionals express concern about AI, compared to just 15% who report excitement about its potential.
This hesitation isn’t unfounded. Legal professionals across all sectors cite accuracy concerns as their primary worry, with 70% identifying inaccurate responses as a key risk. The legal community has witnessed cautionary tales—from counsel citing AI-generated, non-existent cases in court filings to concerns about over-reliance on unverified AI outputs.
However, the path forward doesn’t require choosing between innovation and reliability. Courts need AI solutions specifically designed for legal environments. These systems must prioritize accuracy through human oversight, maintain transparency in their reasoning, and ground their outputs in verified legal sources. The technology exists to enhance court efficiency while preserving the precision that justice demands.
A growing crisis
In our recent report, Staffing, Operations and Technology: A 2025 Survey of State Courts , 71% of state court respondents said staff shortages will be a problem in the next 12 months. Nearly half (46%) of respondents believe a lack of skilled workers will have a “transformational” or “high” impact on courts over the next half-decade.
There’s hope that AI will make up for some of these shortfalls. The survey found that 55% of respondents believe AI will have a “transformational” or “high” impact on courts within the next five years. Respondents anticipate that using AI could save them about three hours per week within the next year, and up to nine hours per week within the next five years.
Yet at the same time, only 17% of respondents said their courts have instituted any type of AI system. While an additional 17% said their courts plan to do so within the next year, that’s still less than a majority.
In some courts, AI adoption is hindered by personnel and budgetary constraints. About 30% of survey respondents expect their IT and technology budgets to decrease within the next 12 months. Many courts simply lack the ability and time to onboard employees in AI usage.
Concerns and misconceptions
Another factor that’s delaying AI adoption in courts is concern about the negative impact the technology could have on proceedings. It’s at the point where, as per the recent survey, more than two-thirds of respondents said AI currently isn’t allowed for court business (for county/municipal courts, it’s more than 80%.)
Asked what they consider to be negative consequences of AI, more than one-third of respondents fear that attorneys relying too much on the technology could diminish their reasoning abilities and legal skills. About 25% of respondents fear the malicious use of AI, with lawyers counterfeiting orders or presenting falsely-created evidence.
However, our research reveals a striking contradiction: AI integration is already occurring extensively within court systems, in less visible ways. More than 80% of respondents indicate their courts currently utilize case management, document management, and e-filing systems—most of which use some form of AI. Similarly, numerous back-office administrative technologies have seamlessly integrated AI-driven capabilities into their operations.
This disconnect highlights a critical misconception about AI’s current role in the justice system. Rather than preparing for an incoming technological disruption, court officials are already operating within an AI-enhanced environment. The challenge has evolved from whether to adopt AI to how to optimize its responsible implementation. Most critically, the focus must shift toward identifying and deploying AI systems that meet the accuracy and reliability standards that justice demands.
