AI Resilience Report forJudicial Law Clerks

Right now, AI in courts is mostly augmenting law clerks rather than replacing them — and judges are pretty open about it. Louisiana appellate Judge Scott Schlegel says he and other judges use AI for legal research, to search extensive case records, and to summarize testimony, and he cautions colleagues to "treat AI like a first-year law clerk and double-check everything". U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard and her law clerks have experimented with ChatGPT, Claude, vLex's Vincent, and Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel ^[1] to draft motions, build timelines, and summarize transcripts.

The National Judicial College is even training appellate judges on exactly this, with live demonstrations of how AI tools may be used for initial case assessment, legal research, brief writing and opinion drafting ^[2]. So the most automatable tasks — checking files, pulling precedents, tracking dockets — are increasingly handled with AI, while clerks focus on judgment-heavy work.

Adoption is moving fast in the broader legal world. A Litify 2025 report found AI use among legal professionals reached 78%, with case and legal research being the #1 use ^[3]. But courts move more cautiously.

A Brookings TechTank discussion on AI in legal practice ^[4] highlights ethics and accuracy concerns, and the stakes are higher for judges — as the ABA notes, federal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey withdrew rulings after AI-related errors, and a Georgia appellate court overturned a divorce decree because the trial judge's order relied on fake caselaw ^{[1] [5]}. A National Law Review survey of 85 legal experts found 58.3% reject the idea that AI will replace entry-level lawyers within five years ^[6], suggesting clerkships will evolve, not vanish. The hopeful takeaway: if you're considering this path, your human strengths — careful judgment, ethical reasoning, and face-to-face communication with judges and attorneys — are exactly what AI can't replicate, and they'll matter more, not less.