MTC: Why Courts Hesitate to Adopt AI - A Crisis of Trust in Legal Technology
/
Despite facing severe staffing shortages and mounting operational pressures, America's courts remain cautious about embracing artificial intelligence technologies that could provide significant relief. While 68% of state courts report staff shortages and 48% of court professionals lack sufficient time to complete their work, only 17% currently use generative AI tools. This cautious approach reflects deeper concerns about AI reliability, particularly in light of recent (and albeit unnecessarily continuing) high-profile errors by attorneys using AI-generated content in court documents.
The Growing Evidence of AI Failures in Legal Practice
Recent cases demonstrate why courts' hesitation may be justified. In Colorado, two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were fined $3,000 each after submitting a court filing containing nearly 30 AI-generated errors, including citations to nonexistent cases and misquoted legal authorities. The attorneys admitted to using artificial intelligence without properly verifying the output, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Similarly, a federal judge in California sanctioned attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP $31,000 after they submitted briefs containing fabricated citations generated by AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini. The attorneys had used AI to create an outline that was shared with colleagues who incorporated the fabricated authorities into their final brief without verification.
These incidents are part of a broader pattern of AI hallucinations in legal documents. The June 16, 2025, Order to Show Cause from the Oregon federal court case Sullivan v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, D. Or. (June 16, 2025) demonstrates another instance where plaintiffs cited "fifteen non-existent cases and misrepresented quotations from seven real cases" after relying on what they claimed was "an automated legal citation tool". The court found this explanation insufficient to avoid sanctions.
The Operational Dilemma Facing Courts
LAWYERS NEED TO BalancE Legal Tradition with Ethical AI Innovation
The irony is stark: courts desperately need technological solutions to address their operational challenges, yet recent AI failures have reinforced their cautious approach. Court professionals predict that generative AI could save them an average of three hours per week initially, growing to nearly nine hours within five years. These time savings could be transformative for courts struggling with increased caseloads and staff shortages.
However, the profession's experience with AI-generated hallucinations has created significant trust issues. Currently, 70% of courts prohibit employees from using AI-based tools for court business, and 75% have not provided any AI training to their staff. This reluctance stems from legitimate concerns about accuracy, bias, and the potential for AI to undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Technology Adoption Paradox
Courts have successfully adopted other technologies, with 86% implementing case management systems, 85% using e-filing, and 88% conducting virtual hearings. This suggests that courts are not inherently resistant to technology. But they are specifically cautious about AI due to its propensity for generating false information.
The legal profession's relationship with AI reflects broader challenges in implementing emerging technologies. While 55% of court professionals recognize AI as having transformational potential over the next five years, the gap between recognition and adoption remains significant. This disconnect highlights the need for more reliable AI systems and better training for legal professionals.
The Path Forward: Measured Implementation
The solution is not to abandon AI but to implement it more carefully. Legal professionals must develop better verification protocols. As one expert noted, "AI verification isn't optional—it's a professional obligation." This means implementing systematic citation checking, mandatory human review, and clear documentation of AI use in legal documents. Lawyers must stay up to date on the technology available to them, as required by the American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1[8], including the expectation that they use the best available technology currently accessible. Thus, courts too need comprehensive governance frameworks that address data handling, disclosure requirements, and decision-making oversight before evaluating AI tools. The American Bar Association's Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools provides essential guidance, emphasizing that lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations when using AI.
Final Thoughts
THE Future of Law: AI and Justice in Harmony!
Despite the risks, courts and legal professionals cannot afford to ignore AI indefinitely. The technology's potential to address staffing shortages, reduce administrative burdens, and improve access to justice makes it essential for the future of the legal system. However, successful implementation requires acknowledging AI's limitations while developing robust safeguards to prevent the types of errors that have already damaged trust in the technology.
The current hesitation reflects a profession learning to balance innovation with reliability. As AI systems improve and legal professionals develop better practices for using them, courts will likely become more willing to embrace these tools. Until then, the cautious approach may be prudent, even if it means forgoing potential efficiency gains.
The legal profession's experience with AI serves as a reminder that technological adoption in critical systems requires more than just recognizing potential benefits—it demands building the infrastructure, training, and governance necessary to use these powerful tools responsibly.
MTC
