Key Takeaways
- • Colorado Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter and Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Lino Lipinsky de Orlov identify artificial intelligence as a fundamental disruptor of legal systems, requiring immediate judicial adaptation strategies.
- • Courts face critical operational risks from AI-generated deepfakes, algorithmic hallucinations, and inconsistent access to AI tools across jurisdictions, creating potential disparities in case outcomes.
- • State and federal judges are actively exploring practical AI applications within adjudication processes, signaling institutional recognition that technological integration is necessary for courts to remain functional.
- • The judiciary is establishing an expert analysis framework through Law360 to develop and share best practices for AI implementation, indicating a structured approach to managing the technology's impact on judicial operations.
Summary
Colorado Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter and Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Lino Lipinsky de Orlov have outlined how artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered judicial operations and how courts must develop survival strategies for the ongoing technology revolution. Published May 18, 2026, their analysis identifies specific technological challenges threatening the integrity of legal proceedings while simultaneously acknowledging AI's potential practical applications within adjudication.
The judges highlight three primary risk areas requiring immediate attention. Deepfake technology poses authentication challenges in evidence presentation, algorithmic hallucinations—where AI systems generate false but plausible-sounding legal citations or facts—undermine evidentiary reliability, and fragmented access to AI tools across different court systems creates disparities that may advantage well-resourced jurisdictions over under-funded ones. These concerns reflect institutional recognition that technological competency gaps could compromise procedural fairness and case outcomes.
Rather than rejecting AI entirely, Berkenkotter and Lipinsky de Orlov present a pragmatic stance: state and federal judges are actively exploring legitimate use cases for AI within judicial functions. The analysis does not specify particular applications but indicates the judiciary is moving toward measured integration rather than wholesale adoption or rejection. This reflects institutional awareness that courts cannot ignore AI's presence in legal practice without ceding operational efficiency to private legal technology.
Law360 has established an Expert Analysis series specifically addressing AI's role in adjudication, inviting sitting judges to contribute insights on practical implementations and institutional safeguards. This coordinated approach suggests the judiciary recognizes that managing AI's impact requires sector-wide knowledge sharing and best-practice development. The framework positions the legal community to develop coherent policies rather than fragmented, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction responses to the technology's challenges.
The judges highlight three primary risk areas requiring immediate attention. Deepfake technology poses authentication challenges in evidence presentation, algorithmic hallucinations—where AI systems generate false but plausible-sounding legal citations or facts—undermine evidentiary reliability, and fragmented access to AI tools across different court systems creates disparities that may advantage well-resourced jurisdictions over under-funded ones. These concerns reflect institutional recognition that technological competency gaps could compromise procedural fairness and case outcomes.
Rather than rejecting AI entirely, Berkenkotter and Lipinsky de Orlov present a pragmatic stance: state and federal judges are actively exploring legitimate use cases for AI within judicial functions. The analysis does not specify particular applications but indicates the judiciary is moving toward measured integration rather than wholesale adoption or rejection. This reflects institutional awareness that courts cannot ignore AI's presence in legal practice without ceding operational efficiency to private legal technology.
Law360 has established an Expert Analysis series specifically addressing AI's role in adjudication, inviting sitting judges to contribute insights on practical implementations and institutional safeguards. This coordinated approach suggests the judiciary recognizes that managing AI's impact requires sector-wide knowledge sharing and best-practice development. The framework positions the legal community to develop coherent policies rather than fragmented, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction responses to the technology's challenges.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.