It’s no surprise that AI is starting to change how courts get work done, especially by making court operations more efficient; however, AI’s growing use raises concerns about accuracy, accountability, and over-reliance, according to a recent report.
The recent 2026 Survey of State Courts, from the Thomson Reuters Institute and the National Center for State Courts — based on a survey of 116 court judges and professionals, plus focus groups — describes a judicial system that still seems a bit uncertain about AI’s risks.
AI is already saving time, but the report shows that people disagree about its full impact. Indeed, the biggest concern is no longer that AI will eliminate jobs, but that over-reliance on AI by judges, court professionals, and staff will erode their professional skills.
AI’s potential is growing in courts
The last several iterations of this annual report clearly show that courts have faced growing caseload demands, staffing shortages, and limited resources. Half of the court professionals surveyed say their caseloads have increased over the previous 24 months, while 74% say case backlogs have either increased or stayed the same. Meanwhile, 59% say their courts experienced staffing shortages in the past year, though that figure is down slightly from last year.
To alleviate that, courts are turning to AI, and the expectations are high. According to the report, court professionals and staff estimate AI will save them an average of three hours per week in 2026, and they expect those savings to more than triple, reaching 9.2 hours per week within five years. While judges and law clerks anticipate slightly smaller gains at first — just over two hours per week this year — they expect their savings to quadruple to eight hours per week within five years.
AI can help manage some gaps such as staffing shortages. In the report, one judge details, “I no longer have a clerk due to funding issues, so I use a combination [of AI tools] to transcribe hearings and also to analyze and compare to case law and/or statutory law.”
Like in many professional environments, drafting documents and correspondence is the most common reported AI use, cited by 48% of respondents. Legal research follows at 38%, while 24% say they use AI to edit, proofread, or improve existing writing.
However, there is still some room for improvement. Many court professionals identified entering and updating information in court management systems as especially time-consuming and error prone. Yet only 2% of respondents say they use AI for scheduling and calendaring.
Will AI help courts or hurt them?
Despite the potential benefits, court professionals are far from unanimous about AI’s impact. More than half of respondents (56%) believe AI will help state courts work faster and more efficiently by reducing paperwork and helping address backlogs, while giving judges better tools to manage cases. However, the remaining 44% believe AI will hurt courts by increasing the risk of mistakes that judges and staff may not catch and making it harder for the public to trust court decisions.
For example, respondents noted concerns about AI hallucinations or errors and data security as the leading barriers to AI adoption, with each cited by about two-thirds of respondents.
To combat this, many courts are building the foundations for responsible AI use, although that work lags far behind rapid AI advancement. Less than one-quarter of respondents say their courts had implemented an AI project into their operations or workflows, and just 13% say their court had developed an AI-literacy strategy for employees. Technology training is another challenge, as less than 40% of respondents say their courts provided AI training.
As the report makes clear, despite the ample potential for AI to make court operations smoother, the necessary policies, training, and safeguards are not keeping pace.
Worries over losing professional skills
The report’s top-ranked concern about AI is over-reliance on technology at the expense of professional skill development, named as the biggest worry by 34% of respondents. Malicious AI use, such as fake court orders or falsified evidence, follows closely at 32%. Just 7% named widespread job loss as their biggest worry, and focus group members described AI as a tool to relieve workloads rather than replace staff.
That means the primary fear over AI isn’t job elimination — which it had been in the past — but instead, it’s the concern that dependence on AI could weaken the expertise needed to properly function in court.
It’s a fear that is grounded in logic. If AI routinely handles research, drafting, summarization, and analysis, professionals still need the judgment to recognize when an answer is wrong, incomplete, or misleading. Those abilities depend on knowledge and experience that can weaken if people stop practicing them because they’ve become too reliant on using easy-found AI answers.
The concern over malicious AI use is more immediate. One-third of court professionals worry that people will use AI to fabricate evidence, such as deepfakes, fake court orders, or altered evidence like reconstructed accident scenes.
Again, these threats reinforce the need for courts to have clear AI policies, training, and human oversight.
Moving toward responsible progress
One of the major takeaways from the 2026 Survey of State Courts is that technology alone will not solve court backlogs or staffing pressures. Courts need to match any advanced AI tool they seek to obtain with the need for training and clear rules. Most importantly, professional review of AI-generated information is crucial.
As the report notes, courts can embrace AI while protecting judicial integrity, but implementation must be thoughtful. And the courts that benefit most will be the ones that know where AI belongs — and where human judgment remains essential.
You can access the full 2026 Survey of State Courts report here
Disclaimer
Thomson Reuters is not a consumer reporting agency, and none of its services or the data contained therein constitute a ‘consumer report’ as such term is defined in the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 et seq. The data provided to you may not be used as a factor in consumer debt collection decisioning, establishing a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, government benefits, or housing, or for any other purpose authorized under the FCRA. By accessing one of our services, you agree not to use the service or data for any purpose authorized under the FCRA or in relation to taking an adverse action relating to a consumer application.