Justice too long delayed is justice denied. — Dr. Martin Luther King

It’s axiomatic that if a litigant has to wait years for a ruling, or for wrongs to be remedied, the delay can cause ongoing harm, loss of evidence, financial hardship, and emotional toll. The delays also increase costs for litigants, often with no clear end in sight.

Moreover, our market economy thrives on trust that disputes will be resolved quickly and fairly under the rule of law. When litigation drags on for years, that trust erodes and public respect for the justice system gives way to cynicism and self-help.

Indeed, according to a 2024 study by the United States Courts, the average time between filing a civil case and trial is a little over two years. In many of these overworked courts, the average time between filing and trial is much longer, often three to four years.

So, there are lots of reasons we need to look for ways to assist our judiciary to resolve disputes expeditiously and reduce backlogs.

Judicial Workflow

Against this backdrop, one of the more interesting vendor discussions I had at this year’s ILTA conference was with LexisNexis representatives about a product in the works to assist judges in drafting opinions.

The platform, which assures privacy and security of the work product, allows judges to upload case files into the system. The system will then prepare a list of the key facts and the legal issues for the judge to review. Based on the judge’s input, the “drafting agent goes to work on a full draft opinion that’s based on the legal issues and the relevant facts and authoritative LexisNexis content,” says Serena Wellen, LexisNexis’ Vice President of Product Management.

The judge does have the option of adding or editing the facts and legal issues. The result is a first draft in a matter of minutes instead of days and weeks. According to Wellen, the “workflow is built to adapt to the judges’ thinking, their analysis, their voice on the bench.”

The product is called Judicial Workflow, and it will be housed with the Protégé platform. LexisNexis believes it will be ready for distribution this fall.

According to LexisNexis representatives, judges report the drafts are typically as good as their clerks’ work, sometimes better.

If it works and is implemented, Judicial Workflow could potentially transform those two-to-four-year case timelines into something far more reasonable.

Why It’s Important

The importance of the tool, if it works as represented, is obvious. Many of our judges, both state and federal, are quite simply overworked and overstressed. Too many cases. Too many motions in every case. Too many issues briefed by very knowledgeable lawyers on subjects the judges know little about.

The result is motions and matters that aren’t timely decided, leaving the parties in limbo. And it’s a confounding impact. Delay in deciding one motion means delay in deciding the next one and on and on. Cases that should be resolved in months take years, again leaving the parties in a no man’s land.

On the state court level, the problem can be even worse. State court judges often don’t have the luxury of law clerks to help them decide matters leaving them, like the litigants, adrift in a no man’s land while trying to live up to standards in some jurisdictions to timely move cases.

The situation inevitably leads to a reduced quality of decisions which can lead to more appeals, further lengthening the process.

And as I have written before, we may be on the cusp of even more cases being brought due to AI and automation tools which make filing easier and justifiable from a cost benefit analysis. Add to this the always constant funding crisis that impact many judicial systems, and you have a perfect storm for increased dissatisfaction with and lack of respect for our courts and the rule of law. It’s critical that we find some solutions.

But Wait

The problem with adoption of tools like Judicial Workflow, of course, is multi-fold. First, legislatures have to be convinced to fund this technology for the judges. That could be a tall order since it means convincing legislators of the benefits of an AI tool. That may be harder than convincing a room full of lawyers.

Second, even if funded, the judges must be convinced to use the tools. That means the tool must be intuitive and easy to use. It also means companies like LexisNexis need to commit to offer the training and support systems to help judges effectively use the platform.

The final problem is the lawyers. I can easily picture a dissatisfied litigant appealing a decision on the basis that a judge used an AI tool in making the decision. Given the number and publicity of lawyers and even judges not reading cases that other tools have hallucinated, that’s a real possibility. They will argue judicial decision making is too important to be left to AI.

So, What Can We Do?

As a profession, we need to realize that our judicial system, our rule of law, and even our professional way of life is under threat. It’s under threat in a number of ways, but not the least of which is the proliferation of litigation, and the backlog judges are facing. It’s under threat when our judges on which we depend are overworked and overstressed, often leading to the best and the brightest leaving the judiciary.

So, we need to ensure that judges have access to and use tools like Judicial Workflow and other AI opportunities to move and decide cases and enable our system to properly function for everyone’s benefit.

It’s All About Education

Again, it’s all about education. Companies like LexisNexis and others if they want to be in this space have to educate judges, legislatures, bar associations, and lawyers of the problem and the validity of their offering. They must demonstrate that the tool works and that the number of hallucinations and inaccuracies can be managed given that the tool works on the LexisNexis legal data base. They have to show that the tools have built-in protections to reduce errors by checking the citations against the Shepard data base.

And when the tool is used, judges need to be transparent with litigants about use. Perhaps judges even need to provide options to litigants: I can use the Workflow and have you a decision next week. Or I can do it without the tool and have you a decision next year. Appellate judges too need to be educated so that there is not a knee-jerk reaction of a decision made by using the tool.

Bar associations also need to play a role in championing tools like these and educating attorneys accurately about the tools, the benefits, and the risks.

A Final Responsibility

And it also goes without saying that companies like LexisNexis who get into this space have a significant responsibility to make sure the products work, that judges use them, and that all are educated both as to the merits and the perils of not doing something. It’s not just making products to sell, it’s about making sure you help protect the system within which the products are expected to work.

It’s Up to All of Us

Tools like the Judicial Workflow can address some of these issues. It’s up to all of us to see that tools can be and are put to use. It’s up to all of us to do everything we can to help our judges and protect the rule of law. Our livelihood and our system depend on it. We need to show that justice is enhanced through the use of AI, not diminished.

Justice delayed is not only justice denied. It’s no justice at all.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post Solving The Justice Delay Problem With AI appeared first on Above the Law.