Judicial Use of AI: Key Takeaways for Ohio Judges of the new AI Ethics Guide
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct’s Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers Ethics Guide was released May 1, 2026 and providing practical guidance for both lawyers and judges when it comes to the use of AI.
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct’s Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers Ethics Guide
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct’s guidance makes clear that while judges may utilize AI to support certain administrative or research functions, its use must always align with the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Above all, AI cannot replace the core responsibilities of the judiciary: exercising independent judgment, ensuring fairness, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.
1. Competence with Technology
Rule: Jud. Cond. R. 2.5 (Competence and Diligence)
Judges must understand the AI tools they use including their capabilities, limitations, and risks. Like lawyers, judges have a duty to stay informed about emerging technology to ensure it is used appropriately in court operations. Ohio Bd. of Prof. Conduct, Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers, Ohio Ethics Guide, at 8 (2026). This can also become important when AI usage becomes an integral part of litigation, for attorney misconduct or otherwise.
2. Independent Judicial Decision-Making
Rules: Jud. Cond. R. 2.7 (Duty to Decide), 1.2 (Integrity of Judiciary)
AI cannot make decisions for a judge. The core judicial function, applying law to facts and reaching a conclusion, must remain entirely human. Delegating that responsibility to AI undermines both the judge’s duty and public confidence in the judiciary. Using AI to make decisions would essentially remove a litigant’s opportunity to be heard by the trier of fact. Id.
3. Verification and Limits in Legal Research and Writing
Related to: Jud. Cond. R. 2.5 (Competence)
AI may assist with research or summaries, but it is not reliable enough to stand alone. Judges must independently verify all outputs, particularly given the risk of “hallucinated” cases or facts. The guide strongly cautions against using AI for legal research as it is not the best use case or to draft judicial opinions. Id. at 9. While the guide indicates it may be okay for attorneys to use AI for a first draft, the independence required for judicial decision making leads to a different conclusion for judges. Id.
Judges should consider the nature in which AI is made to confirm the ideas of the user. Phrasing of a question can lead the predictive models to give answers that support ideas presented by the user rather than challenge the users idea. Id.
4. Impartiality and Bias Concerns
Rules: Jud. Cond. R. 2.2 (Impartiality), 2.3 (Bias and Prejudice)
Because AI is trained on human-created data, it may reflect or amplify bias. Judges must be cautious that reliance on AI does not skew analysis or compromise fairness. Id. at 10.
5. Ex Parte Information and Independent Fact-Finding
Rules: Jud. Cond. R. 2.9(C) (No Independent Investigation), 2.11 (Disqualification)
Using AI tools, especially general-purpose ones, can expose judges to facts or information outside the record. This creates risks similar to improper independent research on the internet and may even require disqualification in some circumstances. Id.
6. External Influence on Decision-Making
Rule: Jud. Cond. R. 2.4 (External Influences)
AI outputs are shaped by data, prompts, and prior inputs, which may act as an influence. Judges must ensure their decisions are based solely on the law and the record and not AI-generated reasoning. Id.
7. Confidentiality of Court Information
Rules: Jud. Cond. R. 3.5 (Confidentiality), 1.2 (Public Confidence)
Judges must not input confidential or nonpublic case information into AI tools, particularly public or unsecured platforms. Mishandling such information can compromise both cases and trust in the judiciary. Id. at 11.
Bottom Line for Judges
AI can assist with administrative tasks, organization, and limited research support. But it must remain a supplemental tool. Judges must maintain control over legal reasoning, protect confidentiality, avoid bias, and ensure decisions are based solely on the record and the law.
If questions arise about appropriate AI use in judicial settings, consulting ethics counsel is strongly advisable.