A
new
survey
of
state
courts
reveals
a
striking
paradox
in
the
American
judicial
system:
Even
though
courts
face
severe
staffing
shortages
and
operational
strain,
they
remain
reluctant
to
adopt
generative
artificial
intelligence
technologies
that
could
provide
significant
relief.
The
Thomson
Reuters
Institute’s
third
annual
survey
of
state
courts,
conducted
in
partnership
with
the
National
Center
for
State
Courts
AI
Policy
Consortium,
found
that
68%
of
courts
reported
staff
shortages
and
48%
of
court
professionals
say
they
do
not
have
enough
time
to
get
their
work
done.
Despite
these
pressures,
however,
just
17%
say
their
court
is
using
gen
AI
today.
Courts
Under
Strain
The
survey,
which
gathered
responses
from
443
state,
county,
and
municipal
court
judges
and
professionals
between
March
and
April
2025,
paints
a
picture
of
courts
under
significant
strain.
Seventy-one
percent
of
state
courts
and
56%
of
county/municipal
courts
experienced
staff
shortages
in
the
past
year,
with
61%
anticipating
continued
shortages
in
the
next
12
months.
This
staffing
crisis
translates
into
demanding
work
schedules,
with
53%
of
respondents
saying
they
work
between
40
and
45
hours
a
week
on
average,
and
an
additional
38%
working
over
46
hours
a
week.
Perhaps
most
telling,
only
half
of
court
professionals
said
they
had
enough
time
to
get
their
work
done.
These
workload
pressures
are
only
getting
worse.
Nearly
half
of
respondents
(45%)
reported
an
increase
in
their
caseloads
compared
to
last
year
and
39%
said
the
issues
they
are
dealing
with
have
become
more
complex.
Meanwhile,
24%
of
respondents
reported
increases
in
court
delays,
compared
to
18%
who
reported
decreases.
AI
Adoption
Remains
Limited
Against
this
backdrop
of
operational
strain,
the
survey
reveals
a
cautious
approach
to
AI
adoption
that
seems
at
odds
with
the
technology’s
potential
benefits.
Currently,
only
17%
of
respondents
said
their
court
was
using
gen
AI,
and
an
additional
17%
said
their
court
was
planning
to
adopt
gen
AI
technology
over
the
next
year.
This
slow
adoption
occurs
despite
widespread
recognition
of
AI’s
transformative
potential,
with
55%
of
respondents
rating
AI
and
gen
AI
as
having
a
transformational
or
high
impact
on
courts
over
the
next
five
years.
The
survey
found
that
AI
and
gen
AI
is
the
highest-ranking
impactful
trend,
rated
as
transformational
or
high
impact
by
55%
of
respondents.
Court
professionals
clearly
see
the
efficiency
benefits
AI
could
provide.
Court
professionals
predict
that
in
the
next
year,
gen
AI
will
help
them
save
an
average
of
nearly
three
hours
a
week,
rising
to
nearly
nine
hours
a
week
within
five
years.
The
projected
time
savings
could
be
substantial:
Respondents
estimate
they
will
save
an
average
of
nearly
three
hours
every
week
in
the
next
year,
growing
to
nearly
six
hours
each
week
within
three
years
and
8.8
hours
each
week
within
five
years.
Barriers
to
AI
Implementation
So
what
is
keeping
courts
back?
The
survey
identifies
several
factors
contributing
to
courts’
cautious
AI
adoption.
Seventy
percent
of
respondents
said
their
courts
are
currently
not
allowing
employees
to
use
AI-based
tools
for
court
business,
and
75%
of
respondents
said
their
court
has
not
yet
provided
any
AI
training.
There
are
also
varied
but
significant
concerns
about
AI
implementation.
More
than
a
third
(35%)
are
worried
that
AI
will
lead
to
an
overreliance
on
technology
rather
than
skill,
while
a
quarter
have
concerns
about
malicious
use
of
AI,
such
as
counterfeit
orders
and
evidence.
Interestingly,
only
9%
were
worried
about
widespread
job
loss
resulting
from
AI.
Budget
constraints
may
also
play
a
role
in
limiting
technology
adoption.
The
survey
found
that
22%
say
their
budget
for
the
next
year
increased,
while
30%
said
budgets
decreased,
and
30%
say
budgets
stayed
the
same.
Current
Technology
Landscape
While
AI
adoption
lags,
courts
have
made
progress
implementing
other
technologies.
Most
courts
have
adopted
key
technologies,
including
case
management
(86%),
e-filing
(85%),
calendar
management
(83%),
and
document
management
(82%).
Video
conferencing
has
reached
near-universal
adoption
at
88%.
However,
some
technology
gaps
remain.
Beyond
gen
AI,
the
most
common
technologies
set
to
be
adopted
next
are
legal
self-help
portals,
online
dispute
resolution
and
document
automation.
Virtual
Hearings
Widely
Adopted
The
survey
shows
significant
adoption
of
virtual
hearings,
with
80%
of
respondents
saying
their
court
conducts
or
participates
in
virtual
hearings.
In
more
than
40%
of
all
jurisdictions,
virtual
hearings
are
available
for
first/initial
appearances,
preliminary/status
hearings
and/or
motion
hearings.
Virtual
hearings
appear
to
improve
court
efficiency
in
some
areas.
58%
of
respondents
reported
that
virtual
courts
decrease
failure
to
appear
rates,
and
84%
reported
that
virtual
courts
increase
access
to
justice.
However,
the
digital
divide
presents
ongoing
challenges.
Nearly
one
in
five
respondents
(19%)
feel
that
the
majority
of
litigants
are
experiencing
decreased
access
to
justice
because
they
lack
strong
technology
skills.
Court
access
for
people
with
lower
digital
literacy
and
fewer
technical
support
resources
were
ranked
as
the
top
challenges
for
litigants
involved
in
virtual
hearings.
Cybersecurity
Concerns
As
courts
increasingly
rely
on
technology,
cybersecurity
emerges
as
a
critical
concern.
The
survey
reveals
significant
variation
in
confidence
levels
regarding
IT
security.
While
57%
of
respondents
feel
highly
confident
in
their
IT
systems’
security,
an
alarming
22%
of
respondents
say
they
are
“not
at
all
confident”
in
the
security
of
their
IT
systems.
Generational
Workforce
Changes
The
survey
identifies
generational
workforce
shifts
as
another
major
factor
affecting
courts.
Baby
Boomers
and
Gen
Xers
exiting
the
workplace,
along
with
Gen
Zers
entering
the
workforce
and
Millennials
moving
into
leadership
positions,
are
trends
frequently
ranked
as
transformational
or
high
impact.
These
demographic
changes
have
important
implications
for
technology
adoption.
As
the
report
notes,
Gen
Zers
are
digital
natives
who
are
very
comfortable
using
technology
and
may
find
it
easier
to
manage
automated
workflows,
while
they
may
be
resistant
to
jobs
and
tasks
that
still
rely
heavily
on
manual
tasks.
Reducing
Operational
Errors
The
survey
provides
insights
about
task
efficiency
and
error
rates
in
court
operations.
Entering
and
updating
data
in
court
management
systems
was
rated
as
both
the
most
error-prone
task
by
a
wide
margin
and
also
as
the
second-most
inefficient
task.
This
finding
suggests
that
greater
use
of
automation
in
CMS
entry
could
yield
major
improvements
in
both
efficiency
and
error
rates.
The
survey
also
found
correlations
between
different
operational
challenges.
Tasks
that
are
more
stressful
are
also
correlated
with
causing
inconvenience
for
court
users,
suggesting
that
addressing
workflow
inefficiencies
could
simultaneously
improve
both
staff
satisfaction
and
user
experience.
A
Critical
Juncture
for
Courts
The
survey
suggests
that
courts
face
a
strategic
choice:
embrace
AI
technologies
that
could
significantly
alleviate
operational
pressures,
or
risk
falling
further
behind
as
staffing
challenges
intensify
and
workloads
continue
to
grow.
“We’re
facing
challenges
—
staff
don’t
think
they
have
enough
time
to
meet
their
demands,
and
they’re
working
more
hours
to
get
the
work
done,
and
that’s
leading
to
burnout,”
said
David
Slayton,
executive
officer
and
clerk
of
court
for
the
Superior
Court
of
Los
Angeles
County.
“It’s
incumbent
on
court
leaders
to
really
think
about
how
technology
can
help
us
with
this
problem.”
Mike
Abbott,
head
of
Thomson
Reuters
Institute,
underscored
the
urgency
of
the
situation.
“Courts
are
facing
an
unprecedented
convergence
of
change,
driven
by
generative
AI
and
generational
shifts
in
their
workforce,
at
the
same
time
as
they
continue
to
deal
with
staff
shortages,
backlogs
and
delays,”
Abbott
said.
“AI
literacy
can
empower
the
courts
to
understand
both
the
risks
and
the
opportunities
associated
with
the
technology,
enabling
them
to
identify
the
best
use
cases
which
help
them
focus
on
higher
value
work.”