The Dangers of Judges Using AI on the Bench

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the judicial system is a growing trend, with courts around the world experimenting with AI-driven tools for legal research, case analysis, and even decision-making. While AI offers the promise of increased efficiency and consistency, its use by judges on the bench introduces significant risks, including issues of accuracy, bias, transparency, and accountability. A real-life example illustrates the potential perils of judicial reliance on AI, as a judge misinterpreted AI-generated translations in a case where a human court reporter got it right. This incident underscores the need for caution and oversight in adopting AI tools in the legal system.

Misinterpretation of AI-Generated Translations

In a recent case, a judge relied on AI-assisted translation to interpret a statement made by a witness. The statement in question was:
“I had — for 100,000, I had the credit in my account. And for $230,000, I took over the X note.”

However, the judge initially misheard or misinterpreted the AI-assisted translation, believing the witness said “four hundred thousand” instead of “one hundred thousand.” When the discrepancy arose, the court turned to the human court reporter for clarification, and the correct translation was confirmed. The AI’s misinterpretation could have led to significant legal consequences, illustrating the dangers of over-reliance on automated tools in a judicial setting.

The Risks of AI Misinterpretation in Courtrooms

  1. Loss of Accuracy in Legal Proceedings
    AI, while powerful, is not infallible. It operates on probabilistic models that predict the most likely interpretation of data rather than guaranteeing accuracy. In legal settings, minor translation errors or misinterpretations can drastically alter the meaning of statements, potentially leading to unjust rulings. Judges who rely on AI for language translation, legal analysis, or even sentencing recommendations risk making decisions based on faulty data.
  2. Erosion of Judicial Discretion
    Judges are expected to exercise discretion based on legal reasoning, human empathy, and nuanced understanding of cases. When AI tools become central to decision-making, judges may defer too much authority to technology, undermining their own expertise. AI’s lack of human judgment, ethical consideration, and contextual awareness makes it a poor substitute for experienced judicial reasoning.
  3. Bias and Fairness Issues
    AI systems are trained on historical data, which often includes embedded biases. Studies have shown that AI-driven legal tools can exhibit racial, gender, and socio-economic biases, leading to unfair outcomes. For example, predictive sentencing AI tools have been criticized for disproportionately recommending harsher sentences for minority defendants. If judges rely on these flawed systems, the risk of institutionalized bias increases rather than decreases.
  4. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
    AI models operate as “black boxes,” meaning their decision-making processes are often opaque. When a judge relies on AI-generated recommendations, it becomes difficult to determine how or why a particular conclusion was reached. This lack of transparency undermines the fundamental legal principle that rulings must be reasoned, justifiable, and open to scrutiny.
  5. Over-Reliance on Automation in High-Stakes Decisions
    Legal cases often involve complex human dynamics that AI cannot fully comprehend. From witness credibility assessments to emotional nuances in testimony, human judges are uniquely capable of interpreting context in ways AI cannot. Over-reliance on AI risks reducing legal proceedings to formulaic, mechanical processes that lack the depth required for true justice.

The Need for Caution and Oversight

To mitigate these risks, several measures must be implemented:

  • AI as an Assistive, Not Decisive, Tool: AI should support judicial functions rather than replace human decision-making. Judges must remain the ultimate arbiters in court cases.
  • Rigorous Accuracy Testing: AI translation and legal analysis tools must undergo extensive accuracy validation before being used in courtrooms.
  • Judicial Training on AI Limitations: Judges must be trained on AI’s capabilities and shortcomings, ensuring they do not over-rely on automated outputs.
  • Human Oversight in AI Use: AI-assisted translations or legal recommendations should always be verified by human experts, such as certified translators or legal analysts.
  • Ethical and Legal Guidelines: Governments and judicial bodies must establish clear ethical and legal guidelines for AI use in the courtroom to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Conclusion

While AI holds significant potential for streamlining legal processes, its use on the bench carries substantial risks. The misinterpretation of AI-generated translations in the recent courtroom example highlights the dangers of relying on automated systems without sufficient oversight. To ensure justice remains fair and accurate, judges must use AI cautiously, balancing technological assistance with human expertise. The legal system must prioritize transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations when integrating AI into judicial decision-making, ensuring that technology serves justice rather than undermines it.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment