As artificial intelligence continues to reshape the justice landscape, courts are facing new responsibilities. Beyond questions of timeliness and efficiency, a deeper challenge is taking shape across the system. Legal institutions must ensure that judges, lawyers, administrators, clerks, and interpreters understand how AI works, where it helps, and where it can mislead. The recent webinar on AI Literacy for Courts: A new framework for role-specific education, the 16th session in the series co-hosted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Thomson Reuters Institute, explores what it means for justice systems to prepare their teams for this shift. The discussion focused on the skills courts need, the frameworks they can adopt, and the mindset required to use AI responsibly while maintaining public trust.
What stands out in the session is that the focus isn’t really on the technology, but on the people who use it. The webinar emphasizes that AI literacy is not a one-size-fits-all concept. Each role in the court ecosystem faces different needs, risks, and responsibilities. From recruitment to evaluation, and from training to policy development, the justice system must rethink how it equips its workforce to understand and work with AI tools. The discussion offers a practical roadmap for building readiness, one that stays grounded in transparency, shared professional values, and the goal of better serving the public.
Why AI Literacy Looks Different Across Court Roles
Courts do not all experience artificial intelligence in the same way. Each role within the justice system engages with AI differently, depending on daily tasks, responsibilities, and the types of decisions they support. This is why clarifying what AI literacy means for each position is an essential first step. Judges must understand how AI-enabled tools might influence reasoning or evidence. Clerks and administrators need to know how to verify outputs and maintain security. Interpreters, translators, and frontline staff require clarity on how automation affects their work and how to use these tools safely. AI literacy, therefore, cannot be treated as a single universal skill, but as a set of role-specific abilities that help each professional work with AI confidently and responsibly.
Once these role-specific needs are identified, courts can begin structuring a clear strategy for building AI literacy across the institution. This means understanding not only what each position should know, but also how those skills will be evaluated, supported, and updated over time. For some roles, literacy may involve learning how to interact with generative AI tools, write effective prompts, or recognize when further verification is needed. For others, it may include understanding recruitment implications, training policies, or the broader operational impact of AI on court processes. What matters most is that every role has a defined path, so that literacy grows in a coherent and intentional way rather than in isolated pockets of individual experimentation.
This role-based understanding also becomes a foundation for larger organizational decisions. Once courts know what AI literacy requires for each position, they can adjust job descriptions, refine hiring practices, and build internal education programs that reflect those expectations. Performance evaluations may also need to evolve, ensuring that staff demonstrate both responsible use of AI tools and a solid grasp of their limitations. By approaching literacy as a structured ecosystem rather than an individual skill, courts create a shared framework that supports long-term readiness and helps the entire institution move forward with confidence.
Building the Foundations for AI Readiness
Preparing courts for AI begins with basic structures that support safe and responsible use. Once literacy needs are defined, institutions can look at how AI fits into their recruitment practices, training plans, internal policies, and evaluation processes. Job descriptions may need simple updates. Staff may need regular training to stay comfortable with new tools. Performance reviews might include expectations around safe AI use. Together, these steps help build a steady foundation so that AI becomes a tool that supports work instead of disrupting it.
Policies also play a key role. Courts must set clear rules for how staff can use generative AI tools, both inside and outside the workplace. This also means establishing clear transparency rules that specify when and how AI use should be disclosed, rather than leaving staff to interpret this on their own. This includes basic security practices, such as avoiding court passwords on external platforms and understanding the limits of personal accounts. With simple guidelines in place, staff can explore AI tools more confidently while keeping sensitive court information safe.
Because technology changes quickly, these foundations need regular updates. Every time a court introduces a new tool or changes a workflow, the literacy plan should be reviewed to make sure it still fits. This creates a healthy feedback loop where policies, training, and expectations grow alongside new tools. Over time, this steady approach helps courts stay prepared without feeling overwhelmed.
Encouraging Curiosity and Building a Supportive Culture
A strong AI strategy is not only about policies. Courts also need a culture that makes people feel comfortable learning and experimenting. Many employees hesitate to try new tools, often because they are unsure of how they work or worried about making mistakes. Creating a supportive environment helps remove that fear and shows staff that AI can be a helpful part of their work, not something to avoid.
Managers play a key role in this shift. When they explore AI tools, share simple use cases, and show how these tools can make daily tasks easier, they spark curiosity among their teams. Small examples such as drafting evaluations, organizing documents, or summarizing information can open the door for broader learning. When managers lead by example, staff feel more confident trying AI themselves.
Reassurance is also essential. Many court employees worry that AI might replace their jobs. In reality, courts are often understaffed, and AI is meant to support the work, not remove human roles. Clear communication helps reduce anxiety and encourages people to explore AI with an open mind. When staff understand that AI is a tool to improve services and access to justice, they approach it more positively. Some institutions also work with labor unions to address these concerns directly. Clear discussions help unions understand that AI is intended to support staff rather than replace positions, especially within existing collective agreements.
Understanding Everyday Gaps in AI Use
Even with more interest in AI, many court professionals still face a few practical gaps when using these tools. These gaps are simple, but they make a big difference in how useful AI becomes.
Here are the three issues that appear most often:
Thinking of AI as a search bar
The interface looks like a single box, so people enter a question and expect a final answer. But AI works best through conversation. It becomes more helpful when users give context, ask follow up questions, and guide the exchange. One useful approach is to ask the AI to interview the user by posing clarifying questions. This turns the tool into an expertise extractor, helping professionals draw on their own knowledge instead of depending on a single answer.
Not giving clear feedback
Many users don’t realize they can ask for bullet points, a shorter text, a chart, or a simpler tone. Without this feedback, AI gives general answers that may not match what the user needs.
Missing opportunities for creativity
AI often returns the most common and predictable answers. Users sometimes forget they can ask for new ideas, non-obvious options, or different approaches. Encouraging this mindset helps AI support problem-solving and innovation.
These small adjustments help professionals get more from AI tools while keeping the experience practical and accessible.
Finding the Right Place for AI in Court Workflows
Deciding where AI belongs in daily court work is not always simple. Some tasks can safely be supported by AI, while others require more precision and human judgment. One helpful way to think about this is to place AI use along a risk spectrum. High stakes tasks, such as filings, legal arguments, or anything submitted to a court, require extra care. Lower stakes tasks, like drafting emails, summarizing documents, or preparing notes, usually carry less risk and allow more flexibility.
For high-precision work, professionals must verify everything the tool produces. This is similar to supervising junior staff: their work must be checked before it can be relied upon. This becomes even more important because younger staff may feel very confident using AI, while senior staff rely more on professional judgment. This “confidence gap” means supervision must balance technical comfort with legal intuition. AI becomes another helper in the workflow, not a final authority. For lighter tasks, AI can save time and help refine tone, structure, or clarity without the same level of risk.
Some organizations also use prompt libraries, checklists, or job aids to guide early use. These tools help people get started, especially when they feel unsure about how to interact with AI. With time and experience, users learn to adapt prompts more naturally and rely less on predefined examples. As workflows evolve, courts can redesign tasks so that AI supports human work while keeping accuracy and responsibility at the center.
Training Safely with Sandboxes and Independent Testing
Learning to use AI requires a space where staff can practice without worrying about mistakes or data security. That is why many courts are turning to AI sandboxes. These controlled environments let people explore tools, test ideas, and build confidence while keeping sensitive information protected. For employees who feel unsure or hesitant, sandboxes offer a low-pressure way to understand what AI can and cannot do.
In these environments, staff can try different types of tools, such as CoCounsel Legal, an internal AI chatbot designed for safe experimentation, and a data-extraction tool built by a colleague to explore how information can be pulled and reorganized from documents. Some courts also load several tools into the sandbox so employees can compare how each one behaves. This gives staff a practical way to understand the strengths and limits of different systems without exposing sensitive court information.
It is also important for courts to have a place where they can observe how AI behaves in their own environment. Sandboxes allow institutions to test tools safely and see how they perform in real workflows before adopting them more widely.
Together, sandboxes and internal evaluation create a safer path for AI adoption. Staff get the chance to learn in a protected space, and courts gain the evidence they need to make informed decisions. This balanced approach supports innovation while staying grounded in caution, transparency, and public trust.
Facing New Challenges with AI Generated Evidence
AI is also changing the way evidence appears in court. Photos, videos, and documents can now be created or manipulated in ways that are difficult to detect. This raises new questions for judges, lawyers, and court staff. Legal teams must understand the risks behind digital content and know when to ask for clarification about how a piece of evidence was produced.
The responsibility does not fall on courts alone. Lawyers also need to question their clients, verify what they submit, and make sure they do not rely on AI generated content without proper checking. When everyone understands the limits and risks of AI, it becomes easier to protect the integrity of the process.
Jurors also need support. Many people assume that AI generated material is either always fake or always accurate. Clear explanations help jurors understand the technology without adding confusion or fear. Building this level of understanding strengthens trust and helps ensure that decisions remain grounded in reliable evidence.
Adapting, Learning, and Moving Forward With AI
The path ahead for courts will require ongoing adaptation. AI continues to evolve, and so must the people who work with it. Creativity, curiosity, and critical thinking will become essential skills in this transition. When professionals stay open to learning, they can use AI as a tool that supports their work instead of limiting it.
Uncertainty is a natural part of this shift. AI tools bring new possibilities but also new questions. Some workflows may change, and others may remain the same. By approaching AI with patience and a human perspective, courts can adjust gradually without becoming overwhelmed. Regular training, clear communication, and a focus on practical needs help keep the process grounded.
The real goal is to strengthen the justice system. When staff understand AI, know how to use it responsibly, and feel supported throughout the learning process, courts can improve services, save time, and maintain public trust. The future will depend not only on the technology itself but on how people adapt to it and use it in thoughtful, accountable ways.
Toward a Justice System Ready for AI
As AI becomes part of everyday court work, institutions must prepare in a way that is careful, human-centered, and grounded in trust. Successful adoption depends on clear literacy plans, role-focused training, strong policies, and a culture that encourages curiosity. With sandboxes, independent testing, and transparent communication, courts can explore new tools while protecting accuracy and public confidence.
AI is not meant to replace the people who keep the justice system running. It is meant to support them. When courts move forward with clarity and responsibility, AI can help improve services and open new opportunities for innovation. The goal is not to move quickly, but to move wisely, and to ensure that every step strengthens the values that guide the justice system.
Learn More
For those interested in exploring the subject further, the full webinar recording and additional resources are available here:
📌 Webinar Recording
AI Literacy for Courts: A new framework for role-specific education
For more details on AI applications in courts, visit:
🌍 NCSC AI Initiative
Ce contenu a été mis à jour le 27 novembre 2025 à 13 h 27 min.