CodeX FutureLaw 2026: Beyond Efficiency

Why It Matters

AI is rapidly altering legal workflows, offering efficiency gains while introducing misinformation risks that demand new regulations, verification protocols, and changes to fee models.

Key Takeaways

• AI boosts judicial efficiency but introduces citation hallucinations
• Over 60% of federal judges have used AI tools
• State courts adopt AI ad hoc, hindered by resource constraints
• Deepfake evidence threatens trust, requiring new verification protocols
• Professional bodies issue AI disclosure rules for lawyers and judges

Summary

The CodeX FutureLaw 2026 panel examined how artificial intelligence is reshaping courtroom practice from the perspectives of judges, lawyers and litigants. Speakers highlighted AI’s promise—speedier docket management, richer legal research, and assistance for self‑represented parties—while warning of emerging dangers such as fabricated citations and deepfake evidence.

A recent survey shows more than 60% of federal judges have already employed AI tools, and state judges report using Copilot, Claude, Gemini, and other models for order drafting, math checks, and rapid research. Yet adoption remains uneven: well‑funded federal courts are ahead, whereas many state courts experiment ad hoc amid limited IT resources. Notable incidents include the Sixth Circuit reprimand for hallucinated case quotes and a California family‑court order that relied on unchecked AI‑generated citations.

Judges shared vivid anecdotes: one handles up to 130 cases a day, turning to AI for quick math and research; Judge Erica Yu uses AI in settlement conferences; and Shlomo Klapper’s Learned Hand platform aims to embed case‑specific AI directly into court workflows. These examples illustrate both the practical benefits and the real‑world pitfalls of over‑reliance on generative tools.

The discussion underscored the urgent need for standards—disclosure rules from the ABA and California Judicial Council, sandbox training for judges, and human‑in‑the‑loop verification—to preserve trust in the evidentiary system. As AI tools become more specialized, law firms will reassess fee structures, and courts will likely expand staff to audit AI outputs, shaping the future of legal services.

Original Description

Generative AI is rapidly becoming a standard tool in American courtrooms, bringing both significant opportunities and novel challenges to the legal system. When utilized correctly, AI has the potential to streamline workflows, help clear judicial backlogs, and provide valuable drafting assistance to both lawyers and clerks. However, recent controversies, including lawyers submitting briefs with hallucinated citations and judges issuing orders containing AI-generated errors, highlight the challenges of usefully and accurately integrating the technology into the legal system. Rather than assuming AI in courts is either inherently dangerous or inherently beneficial, this discussion focuses on how to distinguish helpful uses from problematic use cases in the courtroom.

This panel brings together leading voices to explore how courts and practitioners can capture AI’s benefits while managing its risks:

Judicial Use of AI: Opportunities and Boundaries

- The positive potential: How judges and law clerks can safely leverage AI for routine drafting, research assistance, and managing heavy dockets.

- Lessons from the Wingate and Neals cases: What went wrong, and what would responsible judicial AI use look like?

The Lawyer’s Dilemma: Responsibility for AI-Generated Errors

-Who bears the cost when AI hallucinations appear in filings—opposing counsel, the submitting party, or the court?

Access to Justice Revisited

- Can AI-assisted legal services genuinely expand access to justice?

Transparency and Accountability

- Best practices around AI Use in the Courtroom by Judges and Lawyers

- Addressing concerns around the modification of dockets and “corrected” orders

Panelists:

Honorable Yvonne Campos

Shlomo Klapper

Harry Surden

Erica R. Yew