Courts are writing AI rules for judges too: what litigants should know

Courts are regulating their own AI use as well as lawyers’ filings.

On the hearing logistics call, opposing counsel asks whether chambers’ summary will include the qualification in the project manager’s deposition. The summary judgment briefing is finished. Suppose the court’s new policy permits an approved AI tool to summarize those briefs but requires the judge to read the cited record before ruling; both lawyers now have reason to pull that transcript again.

Judicial use of AI court rules increasingly reach inside chambers: Iowa’s Chapter 27 takes effect January 1, 2027, federal courts have received interim guidance, and California’s SB 574 reaches judicial standards. At Turbo Law, we read these developments as another reason to make material assertions traceable to their sources, so counsel can check the passage the court will see.

Can judges use AI?

An applicable court policy may permit judges to use AI, with limits on the tool and the assignment. Read the permitted uses closely. Approval to summarize a brief leaves a separate question about whether that system may evaluate conflicting testimony.

According to the federal judiciary’s September 17, 2026 announcement, courts have been cautioned against delegating core judicial functions, including decision-making and adjudication, to AI, and judiciary users remain accountable for AI-assisted work. Counsel can rely on that public description while recognizing that it does not provide a particular chambers’ full operating instructions.

Back at the hypothetical hearing, the difference may come down to a few words. A summary says the project manager approved the change order. His testimony says approval depended on the owner accepting the added cost, and the question immediately before that answer explains which change order he meant.

Keep that question with the answer in your argument notes.

What do the new judicial AI rules require?

Requirements vary by jurisdiction, and as of October 5, 2026, some of the measures discussed here have been adopted but are awaiting their effective dates. Others remain proposals. Before adding a requirement to the team’s filing checklist, check which document actually imposes it.

Start with the Iowa Supreme Court’s July 21, 2026 adoption order for Chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools. It sets January 1, 2027 as the effective date and describes work concerning judicial officers and judicial branch employees. Adjudicative uses and disclosure appear among the governance subjects discussed in the order. To advise a client that a particular use is permitted or that disclosure is required, though, counsel needs the operative chapter; the adoption order alone will not support that advice.

At the September 17, 2026 session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office director reported that the AI task force appointed in 2025 had identified more than 60 issues and formed subject-matter subgroups. Courts had received interim guidance. Further guidance was expected as issues were resolved, but a brief discussing federal judiciary AI guidance should stay within what the public report establishes rather than attribute language to unpublished instructions.

Wisconsin’s petition 26-06, filed September 28, 2026, asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt rules concerning equal access to artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. It remains pending. A lawyer reviewing the petition for an upcoming submission should describe the requested rule as a proposal.

California has enacted legislation. Signed September 30, 2026, Senate Bill 574, Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026, takes effect January 1, 2027 and directs the Judicial Council to revisit its standard concerning judicial officers’ use of generative AI. A separate provision bars arbitrators from delegating decision-making to generative AI. For a California arbitration submission, read that provision before borrowing language from an explanation of the bill’s attorney duties.

Can judges use AI?

Keep that question with the answer in your argument notes.

What do the new judicial AI rules require?

How are judicial AI rules different from rules for lawyers?

Judicial policies address the court’s work, while lawyer rules govern counsel’s conduct and submissions. Permission for chambers to use an approved system tells an associate little about whether the firm may upload a confidential client email to its own tool.

On the filing side, the Florida Supreme Court’s May 28, 2026 opinion in In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673, amended Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, to require signers to represent that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited, replacing varied local AI disclosure and certification orders with a statewide approach.

Counsel still supplies the signature. Before a reply goes out, someone must open the cited opinion and examine whether its holding supports the sentence in the brief, even if chambers permits AI-assisted drafting.

American Bar Association Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, issued July 29, 2024, addresses lawyers’ existing professional duties, including competence and confidentiality. It does not authorize a particular tool for chambers. We would apply those duties to the associate’s actual assignment, including the information entered into the system, then check the governing disclosure requirements before the filing deadline.

What should litigants expect when courts use AI?

Litigants should prepare filings whose material assertions can be checked against the cited record, whether or not they know how chambers uses AI. We would start with the factual paragraph opposing counsel is most likely to challenge.

Consider an employment brief stating that an employee received notice of a policy change. Open the supporting email. It may establish only that someone sent the notice; receipt may depend on evidence elsewhere in the file, and the factual discussion needs to preserve that distinction if it matters to the motion.

During the final filing review, we would make these checks:

Pinpoint record cites. Identify the exhibit and passage supporting the assertion. With deposition testimony, include the page and lines containing a qualification that limits the witness’s answer.
Clean exhibits. Open the assembled filing copy and compare its labels with the brief. Check legibility after scanning or redaction. Bookmarks will not recover a missing page.
Accurate quotations. Read the surrounding exchange against the quoted language. Leaving out the question can make an accurately transcribed answer appear to admit something the witness never addressed.
Required disclosure. Consult the governing rule and applicable orders for this filing. An adopted provision awaiting its effective date needs to be identified that way in the team’s instructions.
Verifiable summaries. Attach supporting citations to material chronology entries. Where a witness denies an allegation, preserve that dispute when describing the event.

Then open the challenged paragraph’s exhibit from the final filing set.

Read beyond the quotation. If the qualification sits in the next answer, counsel needs to account for it before signing, even where the quoted words themselves are accurate.

How does source-linked work hold up when a court checks it?

Source-linked work gives counsel a way to inspect the underlying passage before the court does, provided counsel follows the link and checks what the passage actually supports. An overstatement found during drafting can still be corrected before it reaches the filed motion.

Our Review workspace reads the whole matter file: pleadings and productions, correspondence, deposition transcripts, expert reports, and work the team has already prepared. From those materials, it builds a connected picture of the case with facts linked to source pages and lines. New records update that picture. Review, drafting, research and reporting begin with the same case context.

In a construction dispute, counsel might examine the superintendent’s testimony beside correspondence about access to the site. Open the correspondence itself. The description in a chronology may sound useful for a delay argument, but counsel still has to decide whether the language supports that argument before carrying it into the motion.

Assignments given to our Assistant return cited work for attorney review, and it says when the file does not support an answer. Exportable logs record the request and the materials read, together with the work produced. Serving, filing and sending remain outside its role.

Authorities need a separate check. Our Research queries the matter file and public record together and is designed to flag whether a case has been distinguished or overruled; that information gives the lawyer a lead to investigate. Counsel must read the relevant opinions and determine whether the proposed citation supports the proposition in the brief.

An internal link does not put its source document into the court record. Before signing, match the checked passage to the exhibit being filed, including its final pagination; the workspace cannot replace the lawyer’s own check.

FAQ

Do judges have to disclose AI use?

That depends on the applicable judicial rule or policy and the use involved. A disclosure requirement directed at lawyers’ submissions supplies no basis, by itself, for telling a client that the judge must disclose AI assistance.

Is there a federal rule on judicial AI?

The September 17, 2026 announcement confirms that federal courts received interim AI guidance. Its reach has limits. The report does not establish a single, comprehensive public rule resolving every question about judicial AI use. Before making a procedural request, check the particular court’s published requirements against the point you intend to raise.

When does Iowa’s judicial AI rule take effect?

January 1, 2027 is Chapter 27’s effective date. Because the Iowa Supreme Court adopted the chapter on July 21, 2026, internal guidance prepared before implementation should distinguish the adoption date from the date the rule takes effect.

Does California SB 574 apply to judges?

SB 574 directs the Judicial Council to revisit its standard on judicial officers’ generative AI use, and separate provisions address attorneys and arbitrators. It takes effect January 1, 2027. Before advising a client about disclosure, locate the provision governing the relevant actor in the chaptered text.