Robert Ambrogi Blog
A first-of-its-kind random-sample survey of federal judges has found that more than 60% have used generative artificial intelligence tools in their judicial work, though fewer than one in four use these tools on a daily or weekly basis.
The study, conducted by researchers at Northwestern University in collaboration with the New York City Bar Association, provides an empirical snapshot of how AI is being integrated — and not integrated — into federal court chambers.
The research, “Artificial Intelligence in Federal Courts: A Random-Sample Survey of Judges,” forthcoming in Volume 27 of The Sedona Conference Journal, surveyed 502 randomly selected bankruptcy, magistrate, district court and court of appeals judges in late 2025. Of those, 112 responded, for a 22.3% response rate.
The survey found that 61.6% of responding judges use at least one AI tool in their judicial work. Of those, however, few use it frequently. Only 5.4% reported daily use, while 17% use AI tools weekly. Another 19.6% use AI monthly, and the same percentage use it rarely. The remaining 38.4% reported never using any of the listed AI tools in their work.
“Although a majority of responding judges at least occasionally use AI tools in their judicial work, relatively few report using AI on a daily or weekly basis,” the report states. “This pattern suggests that AI is present in federal judicial chambers but not yet a routine, embedded part of most judges’ decision-making processes.”
A Preference for Legal AI Tools
The survey found a clear preference among judges for legal-specific AI tools integrated into established research platforms rather than general-purpose AI systems such as ChatGPT.
That said, while Westlaw AI-Assisted Research or Deep Research was the most commonly used tool, with 38.4% of judges reporting some level of use, ChatGPT came second at 28.6%.
However, the frequency of use differs between legal-specific and general tools. For legal-specific AI tools, 5.4% of judges reported daily use and 9.8% reported weekly use. For general-purpose AI tools, only 0.9% reported daily use and 9.8% reported weekly use.
“This pattern indicates that vendor familiarity and perceived reliability may strongly shape which AI tools judges are willing to deploy in chambers,” the report notes.
Other AI tools showed minimal adoption. Anthropic’s Claude was used by only 0.9% of judges, all at a frequency of “rarely.” Harvey and Legora showed 0% usage across all responding judges. Vincent AI (vLex) similarly showed only 0.9% rare usage.
Legal Research Dominates Usage
When asked about specific applications, judges overwhelmingly pointed to legal research as their primary AI use case. Thirty percent of judges reported using AI to conduct legal research, making it the most common application by a significant margin.
Document review came in second at 15.5%, followed by drafting documents not filed in cases (7.3%), summarizing text or audio (7.3%), and preparing case timelines or chronologies (5.5%).
Notably, judges reported minimal use of AI for drafting or editing documents that are filed in cases. Only 1.8% reported using AI to draft filed documents such as orders, opinions or judgments, and 2.7% reported using AI to edit such documents.
This contrasts with higher rates for non-filed documents: 7.3% use AI to draft letters, emails or articles, and 4.5% use AI to edit such materials.
The survey also found that 1.8% of judges reported using AI to “make decisions,” while 4.5% reported using AI to “inform decisions.”
Staff Show Similar Patterns
Judges reported slightly higher AI usage compared to others in their chambers. While 50.9% of judges said they do not use AI in their work, a somewhat lower 45% reported that others in their chambers do not use AI.
Legal research remained the top use case for chambers staff at 39.8%, followed by document review at 16.7%. The patterns largely mirrored judges’ own usage, though judges reported that staff use AI for legal research approximately 10 percentage points more frequently than judges themselves do.
Several judges indicated uncertainty about how their staff actually use AI. One responded simply, “I am not certain whether they use any type of AI.” Another recounted an incident where “my law clerk wrote a memo for me, and then after she finished, out of curiosity, she asked AI to write a memo on the same question. Of the 11 cases AI cited in its version, 10 of them were fake.”
Training Gap Identified
The survey revealed what the researchers describe as “unmet demand” for AI training in the judiciary. Nearly half of judges (45.5%) reported that AI training had not been provided by court administration, and an additional 15.7% were unsure whether training had been offered.
Among the 38.9% who recalled training being offered, a significant majority (73.8%) attended. This suggests that when training is provided and visible, judges are receptive to it.
Training availability and attendance varied by judge type. Magistrate judges reported the highest rate of attending training at 40%, followed by bankruptcy judges at 36.7%. District court judges reported attending at a lower rate of 16.7%.
Chambers Policies: A Mixed Picture
The survey found no dominant approach to AI governance within chambers. Approximately one-third of judges either permit and encourage (7.4%) or permit (25.9%) AI use by those working in their chambers. Another third either formally prohibit (20.4%) or discourage but do not formally prohibit (17.6%) AI use.
One in four judges (24.1%) reported having no official policy on AI use. If those who merely discourage AI without formal prohibition are included, 41.7% of judges lack an official AI policy.
Several judges who selected “permitted” or “permitted and encouraged” described significant limitations. One wrote: “I have a firm policy, though, against AI generating content of orders, opinions, or communications.”
Another specified that AI is “permitted and encouraged, but within very narrow guardrails. Only as part of Westlaw or Lexis research tools, and only to summarize voluminous materials.”
Similarly, some judges who selected “formally prohibited” carved out exceptions. One noted: “My clerks can use AI for legal research (Westlaw) but not for other functions.”
Another wrote: “It’s fine to use for something like a poem celebrating a birthday or anniversary. But I do not permit it for case-related work.”
Personal Use Correlates with Professional
The survey found a statistically significant correlation between judges’ personal and professional AI use. The researchers used a statistical analysis tool, the chi-square test, and found what they described as “strong statistical evidence” of association. Another statistical analysis method, the Cramér’s V test, found a moderate strength of association between their personal and professional use.
Overall, 38% of judges reported using AI daily or weekly outside of work. When asked about personal AI uses, judges described a wide range of applications: trip planning, restaurant recommendations, general knowledge searches, drafting personal correspondence and household questions.
One judge who uses AI daily outside work wrote: “I use them every day to get answers to questions as they pop up throughout the day. I do not ever use AI to work on my cases.”
One in five judges (20.4%) reported never using AI in either their personal lives or their work.
A Split Between Optimism and Concern
When asked about their general outlook on AI’s potential for the judiciary, judges were nearly evenly divided. Slightly more than 43% expressed optimism (13% very optimistic, 30.6% somewhat optimistic), while approximately 42% expressed concern (13.9% very concerned, 27.8% somewhat concerned). Another 14.8% were neutral.
The free-response comments revealed recurring themes on both sides.
Optimistic judges emphasized efficiency gains and research capabilities. One wrote: “Summarizing trial transcripts and voluminous documents and pinpointing instances of specific testimony in a closed universe environment is a huge time saver.”
Another noted: “I believe it will be a significant benefit to conserving judicial resources. So long as accuracy can be confirmed.”
Concerned judges focused primarily on hallucinations and skill atrophy. One wrote: “The consistent reports of zombie cases and other instances where AI conjures law or facts is terrifying and forms the basis for how we use AI in chambers.”
Another expressed worry about broader effects: “My [spouse] teaches and has sensitized me to the harmful effects that AI is having on students’ ability to think and write for themselves. The undergraduate students of 2025 are the law clerks of 2030, so yes, I’m concerned.”
Several judges expressed mixed feelings. One neutral respondent wrote: “I’m optimistic that AI can help us become more efficient …, but I am highly concerned that AI is causing younger generations of lawyers and laypeople not to think critically and to lose essential research and writing skills.”
One very concerned judge wrote: “If I had published an opinion with hallucinated citations, I’d have to give serious consideration to resigning.”
Differences Across Judge Types
The survey revealed variations in AI adoption and attitudes across different categories of federal judges, though the researchers caution that some findings — particularly for court of appeals judges, where only six responded — should be viewed as anecdotal rather than representative.
Bankruptcy judges showed the highest rate of daily or weekly AI use at 32.2%, compared to 21.9% for magistrate judges and 13.9% for district court judges. Conversely, 46.5% of district court judges reported never using AI in their work, compared to 35.5% of bankruptcy judges and 37.5% of magistrate judges.
On outlook, magistrate judges were more optimistic than concerned (46.7% versus 30%), while bankruptcy judges (50% concerned versus 40% optimistic) and district court judges (47.6% concerned versus 40.5% optimistic) leaned toward concern.
Other AI Tools and Use Cases
When given the opportunity to describe other AI tools and uses, some judges identified applications beyond the survey’s listed options. One judge mentioned using Speechify, an AI-based text-to-speech tool, on a weekly basis. Several described using AI for preparing presentations, talks and CLE program outlines — activities related to but distinct from case work.
One judge raised a definitional question: “It depends on how you define AI tools. I assume you’re referring to Generative AI. Even assuming it’s Gen AI you’re concerned with, would text prediction be included?”
Limitations Acknowledged
The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The 112-judge sample, while providing a foundation for analysis, carries a margin of error of approximately ±9% at a 95% confidence level for the overall findings. Margins of error are larger for specific judge types, and findings for court of appeals judges (six respondents) cannot be considered representative.
The researchers also noted potential biases including self-selection (judges with strong opinions about AI may have been more likely to respond) and social desirability bias (judges might under- or over-report AI use based on how they perceive such use is viewed).
The study was limited to federal judges and did not include Supreme Court justices, Court of International Trade judges, or state court judges.
Methodology
The survey was conducted between Dec. 1 and Dec. 19, 2025. Researchers used a stratified random sampling method, selecting approximately 29% of judges from each category (bankruptcy, magistrate, district court and court of appeals) from a compiled population of 1,738 federal judges.
The survey featured both multiple-choice and free-response questions and was approved by Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board. Only the Northwestern researchers had access to the unprocessed data; other authors and collaborators received only aggregated visualizations and de-identified individual responses.
The research was conducted by Anika Jaitley, research assistant for the Law and Technology Initiative at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Daniel W. Linna Jr., professor of instruction and director of Law and Technology Initiatives at Pritzker; U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas; V.S. Subrahmanian, Walter P. Murphy professor of computer science at Northwestern University and Buffett faculty fellow at Northwestern’s Buffett Institute for Global Affairs; and Siyu Tao, law student and research assistant at Pritzker.