Editorial illustration for Judge Sees AI in Courts as Tool for Greater Access to Justice
AI in Courts Could Expand Justice Access, Judge Argues
Judge Sees AI in Courts as Tool for Greater Access to Justice
Geoffrey Vos steps down this week as Master of the Rolls, the top civil justice post in England and Wales, and he's using his last days in office to push a question most of his colleagues would rather avoid: should artificial intelligence decide court cases? Current guidance tells judges in England to keep AI confined to administrative work. Vos tells WIRED he already uses Microsoft Copilot constantly, mostly to track down documents and summarize long texts.
But a recent visit to a court in Shenzhen, China, changed how far he thinks that role should extend. There, civil disputes are being resolved with judges leaning heavily on AI assistance, and Vos came away convinced other countries should take notice.
The timing is awkward. UK lawyers have been caught submitting AI-hallucinated case law in filings, and one practitioner has already lost a license partly over misuse of the technology. Self-represented litigants, armed with chatbots instead of solicitors, are filing claims in record numbers, some without merit. Vos argues the technology still has a future in resolving everyday disputes faster and cheaper, even if bigger cases stay with human judges.
There’s something almost biblical about the human judge; it’s in the human psyche to want to be judged by their fellow man. But that does not mean that in some situations people wouldn’t rather have a quick outcome—even if it’s not a human outcome.
Why this matters
Vos is retiring with a wager most judges won't make out loud: that ChatGPT-drafted claims are a sign the system is working, not breaking down. For builders of AI legal tools, that's a real opening. A sitting judge is on record saying self-represented litigants who turn to a chatbot "probably genuinely think they have a claim," which is a far more generous read than most courts have offered.
But the gap Vos is describing is also the risk: his own guidance still restricts judges to Copilot for document retrieval and summarizing, nothing resembling case reasoning. If litigants are using generative tools to frame arguments while judges are fenced off from doing the same, that asymmetry needs product thinking, not just policy debate. Anyone building for this space should watch what replaces today's "admin only" rule when Vos's successor takes over, and whether "greater access to justice" becomes a metric courts actually track rather than a line judges use to wave off scrutiny of what these tools get wrong.
Related Reading
AI Tools & Apps Claude gains shared context in Excel, PowerPoint; Microsoft adds Copilot Cowork
AI Tools & Apps Sarvam Signs 5-Year Defence AI Deal Covering Army, Navy and Air Force
AI Tools & Apps LG's recent webOS update adds Microsoft Copilot app, now removable
From Archives Firefox’s Smart Window adds AI form filling and webpage monitoring
From Archives ROCm 10.0.0 Adds Ray 2.58.0 Support for AMD Instinct GPU Clusters
Common Questions Answered
What is Geoffrey Vos's position on using AI to decide court cases?
Geoffrey Vos, the outgoing Master of the Rolls for England and Wales, believes AI should play a role in deciding court cases and advocates for greater integration of artificial intelligence in the judicial system. He argues that while people have a psychological preference for being judged by other humans, in some situations people would prefer a quick outcome even if it comes from an AI system rather than waiting for a human judge.
How does Geoffrey Vos currently use AI tools like Microsoft Copilot in his judicial work?
Vos uses Microsoft Copilot constantly for administrative tasks, primarily to track down documents and summarize long texts. This demonstrates his practical engagement with AI technology and his belief in its utility for improving judicial efficiency.
What does current guidance in England require judges to do regarding AI usage?
Current guidance instructs judges in England and Wales to keep artificial intelligence confined to administrative work only, restricting its use in actual case decisions. This guidance represents the conservative approach that most of Vos's judicial colleagues prefer to maintain.
How does Vos interpret self-represented litigants using ChatGPT to draft legal claims?
Vos takes a more generous view than most courts, suggesting that self-represented litigants who turn to chatbots for help 'probably genuinely think they have a claim,' indicating the system is working rather than breaking down. This perspective contrasts sharply with the skepticism many courts have traditionally shown toward AI-assisted legal arguments.
What opportunity does Vos's stance on AI in courts create for legal technology builders?
Vos's public support for AI in judicial decision-making represents a significant opening for builders of AI legal tools, as a sitting judge is on record endorsing the use of AI technology in the legal system. His willingness to advocate for this position provides legitimacy and encouragement for developers creating AI solutions for the legal profession.
Further Reading
- Product Hunt - AI Tools - Product Hunt
- There's An AI For That - TAAFT
