Artificial Intelligence in the California Judicial System

Artificial Intelligence in the California Judicial System – An Inside Look kalina stancheva judge at sofia regional court president of bawj

Navigating Technological Capabilities, Judicial Independence, and Human Judgment

During a professional training program in San Francisco, USA—featuring speakers from the University of California and Stanford University—various aspects of the future of law, dispute resolution, and the role of new technologies in the work of legal professionals were examined. Within the context of judicial proceedings, the use of artificial intelligence takes on particular significance; it raises questions not only regarding the efficiency of the justice system but also concerning its fundamental principles—such as independence, impartiality, integrity, personal accountability, and the process by which a judge forms their inner conviction.

California serves as an intriguing example of how technological advancement is gradually reshaping daily life and creating new challenges for institutions, including the judiciary. In San Francisco, these shifts are evident not only in professional discourse but also within the urban landscape. Autonomous vehicles operated by "Waymo" now navigate the streets without a human driver, and encountering robots in the city has become increasingly commonplace—no longer resembling scenes from a science fiction film. Such observations illustrate how rapidly technologies, once considered part of a distant future, are becoming an integral part of everyday life. It is inevitable that this global transformation will also leave its mark on the administration of justice. Artificial intelligence can be used to support legal research, process large volumes of information, and carry out administrative tasks. However, alongside these capabilities, questions arise regarding the reliability of generated content, the protection of personal data, accountability in decision-making, and the risk of perpetuating existing biases. As autonomous technologies become part of the public sphere, the question of how the legal system should respond to them takes on not only theoretical but also immediate practical significance.

In May 2024, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California established a special working group on artificial intelligence, tasked with developing recommendations for its use within the judicial system. The issues under consideration include ways to facilitate access to justice, the risks associated with the creation of fabricated evidence, and the use of artificial intelligence in conducting legal research.

As of September 1, 2025, specific rules regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence in courts have come into effect in California. These rules emphasize verifying the accuracy of generated information, protecting confidential data, and preventing harmful or discriminatory outcomes. This approach highlights the necessity for technological advancement to be accompanied by clear regulations and accountability in the use of new tools. A similar need should be taken into account when shaping national policies in Bulgaria. One of the fundamental issues concerns the boundary between technological support and a judge’s independent judgment. Artificial intelligence can provide information, organize arguments, and assist in handling specific cases. At the same time, there is a risk that it may generate non-existent judicial decisions, inaccurate legal arguments, or claims that appear convincing yet are fundamentally flawed. Consequently, the use of any artificial intelligence tool does not absolve a judge of the duty to verify the reliability of the information received and to form their own conviction independently.

In this context, the protection of judicial independence becomes particularly significant. When algorithmic tools influence the perception of facts, the assessment of evidence, or the selection of the applicable legal norm, the question arises as to the extent to which the final decision is the product of independent human judgment. Even when a system creates an impression of objectivity, its outputs are shaped by the data used, its underlying operational logic, and inherent limitations—factors that are not always apparent to the user.

Equal importance should be placed on the training of magistrates. Responsible use of new technologies requires an understanding of their capabilities, their limitations, and, crucially, the challenges associated with them. Skills should be developed to identify inaccuracies, algorithmic biases, and privacy risks—all while remaining open to the potential benefits of technological innovation. Achieving this goal requires an ongoing dialogue among judges, the academic community, IT specialists, and the institutions responsible for establishing the rules for the use of artificial intelligence.

The development of technology necessitates that the question of its application be considered alongside the question of the values ​​that must be preserved during the modernization of the justice system. It is important to consider not only whether artificial intelligence can accelerate a judge’s work, but also under what conditions greater efficiency can be achieved without compromising the rights of citizens—and, above all, public trust in the courts.

Ultimately, a modern justice system is defined by more than just the speed of adjudication. It requires the ability to harness technological progress without losing the human dimension in the resolution of disputes. Behind every legal case lie real people and human lives. Therefore, even if artificial intelligence serves as a valuable tool, the responsibility for reaching a fair decision must remain in the hands of the human being entrusted with the administration of justice.