The survey covers only policies aimed at judges and court personnel. It does not address rules for attorneys or litigants. Its date is reported as late October 2026, and an October 2026 report offers implementation recommendations but does not require courts to adopt any particular AI system. Federal judges show similar variation. In a Northwestern-led study, more than 60 percent of responding judges reported using at least one AI tool in their judicial work, while 38.4 percent reported using none of the listed tools. Of the judges surveyed, 20.4 percent said their chambers formally prohibit AI use, and 17.6 percent said it is discouraged but not formally banned.
For attorneys, the practical point is that any AI product sold to courts must fit a patchwork of state rules rather than one national standard. Check the local rules for each court where you appear, particularly whether your clerks, judges, or court staff are barred from using the same tools you use. Commentary on the story expects other vendors to follow Clio into the judiciary market, so expect more court-facing AI products and more disputes over which tools are permitted in chambers. Track whether courts adopt the October 2026 recommendations, and watch for changes to Massachusetts and New York policies, which set the range of the current rules.