Illinois Task Force Explores How AI Could Speed Up Litigation

Generative artificial intelligence could boost the Illinois judiciary by helping judges produce opinions faster and assist individuals in better preparing their own cases, members of a new Illinois AI task force said.

The Illinois Judicial Conference task force, created in January, is meeting monthly to discuss how generative AI could help the court system improve access to the courts, promote procedural fairness, and increase public confidence in the judiciary.

In interviews and emails with Bloomberg Law, members of the task force acknowledged AI could impair the administration of justice if not used responsibly by, for instance, relying on it for researching legal cases without verifying its findings.

But if used right, they said artificial intelligence could help judges and individuals expedite case resolution, speed up legal research, and make the court system easier for everyday citizens to navigate.

“Are there bad actors who could misuse AI? Of course. Yet, I am extremely optimistic about AI and the courts,” task force co-chair and Williamson County Associate Judge Jeffrey Goffinet said in an email. “The worst in my mind would be that we do nothing with it. That would be a wasted opportunity,” he said.

In 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court broadened the conference’s membership to include non-judges and appoint task forces focused on discrete objectives. The appointment of the AI Task Force is one of the conference’s latest steps.

The task force consists of 21 members, six of whom are judges.

‘Huge Opportunity’

Because technology changes so quickly, the task force will focus on how courts could benefit from using AI and spend less time teaching people how it works. The group anticipates issuing recommendations no later than Dec. 31.

Task force members said AI could help judges do their jobs by speeding up their analysis of litigants’ briefs, researching case histories, and marshaling facts relevant to cases under review.

"[T]here’s a huge opportunity for creating tools to help judges with the work they do,” Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor and task force member Daniel Linna said in an interview.

AI tools are already good enough to accelerate the legal research process and will allow judges and their law clerks to “do routine tasks more efficiently and effectively so that more time can be devoted to challenges that AI will not solve, including the human aspects of disputes and court proceedings,” Linna said.

An example would be using AI to analyze the case citations used in briefs filed by both sides in a case. The AI tool could quickly list what cases plaintiffs and defendants both cite in their briefs, even if voluminous, as well as which cases only one side references. By analyzing the topic, the AI tool could also surface relevant cases neither side mentioned.

Such tools could speed up the drafting of opinions. “One of the greatest difficulties about legal research is finding the right words to frame the inquiry. I believe AI would be able to help judges and clerks accomplish that more quickly,” Goffinet said.

Fears that AI will eliminate some traditional jobs at the courthouse are overblown, Linna said. “In some situations, it might almost eliminate the need for traditional research assignments a judge might ask an intern or a clerk to do,” he said. But “law clerks have unending opportunities to do more in the courts to deliver value for litigants and society.”

Judges and their teams need no special training to use the AI tools. Indeed, some tools already available can be used by simply dropping electronic copies of briefs into a desktop folder. “Judges will not need to learn a lot about AI to use the tool, but it is important that they learn about the benefits and risks so that they can use these tools effectively and responsibly,” Linna said.

Self Representation

Task force members agreed AI will also help individuals, including those representing themselves, better navigate the court system.

For instance, AI terminals could help individuals identify the correct forms needed in a court proceeding and provide instructions, in numerous languages and in a conversational way, on completing them, Greenberg Traurig LLP shareholder Reena Bajowala said.

“Anyone who has worked a help desk in a courthouse knows these forms can be very difficult to fill out,” she said.

AI could also help individuals without a lawyer draft statements to a court, said Bajowala, who specializes in data security, privacy, and artificial intelligence matters.

“Putting myself in the shoes of a self-represented party, I might use an available large language model to help me write an opening statement or prepare interrogatories in order to be better prepared for a hearing date,” Illinois Trial Court Administrator and task force co-chair Thomas Jakeway said in an email.