The landscape of legal practice is rapidly evolving, and nowhere is this more evident than in Arkansas, where the Supreme Court has just released a proposed administrative order that could reshape how artificial intelligence is used in the courtroom. This move comes as generative AI tools like ChatGPT become increasingly common in legal research and document drafting, raising both opportunities and serious concerns.
Why the New Rule?
At the heart of the proposed order is the protection of confidential court data. Generative AI models, by design, learn from the data users input. This means that if sensitive or sealed information is entered into an AI tool, there’s a risk that this data could be retained and potentially exposed in future outputs. The Arkansas Supreme Court is taking a proactive stance, reminding legal professionals that sharing such information with AI could violate existing laws and ethical rules.
What Does the Order Say?
The proposed order specifically prohibits anyone with internal access to the state’s court system, known as CourtConnect, from intentionally exposing internal court data to generative AI. This is a significant step to ensure that the privacy and integrity of court records are maintained. However, the order does allow for exceptions: if the Supreme Court’s Automation Committee approves a research or analysis project, generative AI tools may be used for the benefit of the courts.
The Broader Context: AI Hallucinations and Legal Risks
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s move isn’t happening in a vacuum. Across the country, judges have expressed frustration with attorneys who submit legal documents containing citations to cases that don’t exist—a phenomenon known as “AI hallucinations.” These errors, generated by AI tools, have led to sanctions and raised questions about the reliability of AI in legal practice. The proposed order in Arkansas is a direct response to these challenges, aiming to prevent similar issues within the state’s legal system.
What Legal Professionals Should Know
For lawyers and court staff, the message is clear: exercise caution when using AI tools. Avoid inputting any confidential or sealed information into generative AI platforms. Stay informed about the latest court rules and seek approval for any AI-related research projects. The Supreme Court’s Automation Committee is actively studying the use of AI in the courts and will continue to make recommendations as technology evolves.
Actionable Takeaways
- Never input confidential or sealed court information into generative AI tools.
- Check for updates from the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Automation Committee regarding AI use.
- If you’re considering an AI project for legal research, seek formal approval first.
- Be vigilant for AI-generated errors or hallucinations in legal documents.
- Educate your team about the risks and responsibilities associated with AI in legal practice.
Looking Ahead
The comment period for the proposed administrative order is open until August 1, giving legal professionals and the public a chance to weigh in. As the Automation Committee continues its work, further recommendations and refinements are expected. Staying informed and compliant will be key as AI continues to transform the legal landscape.
Key Points:
- The Arkansas Supreme Court is proposing new rules to restrict AI use with confidential court data.
- Generative AI tools can pose privacy and accuracy risks in legal practice.
- Exceptions for AI use are possible with committee approval for research.
- AI hallucinations have led to legal sanctions elsewhere, prompting caution.
- Legal professionals should stay updated and avoid sharing sensitive data with AI tools.