{
  "data": {
    "author": "Vlad Cealicu",
    "faq": null,
    "kicker": "Blog · Opinion · 31 October 2026",
    "lede": "Lawyers on both sides already run their arguments through AI, and judges are catching up. The replacement started where the stakes are small, and I think the backlog pushes it the rest of the way.",
    "readingMinutes": 3,
    "words": 752
  },
  "kind": "anchor.page",
  "links": {
    "api": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json",
    "html": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet",
    "json": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet.json",
    "llms": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt",
    "markdown": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet.md",
    "mcp": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp",
    "slim": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet.min.md"
  },
  "markdown": "By Vlad Cealicu, 31 October 2026. 752 words, about 3 min to read.\n\nLawyers on both sides already run their arguments through AI, and judges are catching up. More than 60% of the federal judges who answered a Northwestern survey have used an AI tool in their work, and 22.4% use one every week or every day [[1]](#ref-1). In July 2025 the US federal courts told their judges they can use it as long as they don't hand it the deciding [[2]](#ref-2), and Los Angeles County Superior Court has been trying Learned Hand since early 2026, a tool that drafts the tentative ruling and leaves the judge to check it and change it before it goes out [[3]](#ref-3).\n\nEstonia never had a robot judge, whatever you've read (its justice ministry said in 2022 that the 2019 story was misleading and there was never such a project) [[4]](#ref-4), and China's Supreme People's Court says AI \"shall not make judicial decision substituting for the judge in any case\" [[5]](#ref-5).\n\n## Where it started\n\nThe real replacement started where the stakes are small, with both sides agreeing to it and a human still signing. The American Arbitration Association now lets two parties choose an AI arbitrator that writes the first decision, which a human arbitrator can approve, edit or rewrite before it goes out [[6]](#ref-6), and in its own tests on construction cases decided from documents it was 20 to 25% faster and at least 35% cheaper [[7]](#ref-7). In Toronto, ADR Chambers launched aiADR in August 2026 for small-money disputes, where the AI makes the findings and reaches the decision and a human arbitrator reviews the award [[8]](#ref-8), and Singapore's small claims court gives its magistrates a tool built with Harvey that sums up both sides' cases [[9]](#ref-9).\n\n## The order I think it comes in\n\nFrom small claims to nobody signing\n\n1. **Small claims and arbitration** (happening now). The AI writes the decision and a person signs it, when both sides agree [[6]](#ref-6) [[8]](#ref-8)\n2. **Civil cases decided on the papers** (starting). England and Wales want judges to decide small claims from documents alone [[10]](#ref-10)\n3. **Sentences drafted by a model** (a judge signs). Risk scores are already used, as long as they don't decide [[14]](#ref-14)\n4. **A sentence with nobody signing** (not allowed anywhere yet). Every rulebook says no today [[5]](#ref-5) [[15]](#ref-15)\n\nSo my guess is small claims and arbitration first, which is happening now.\n\nThen civil cases decided on the papers. In May 2026 the committee that writes the civil court rules in England and Wales asked whether judges should be able to decide small claims from the documents without both sides agreeing, after trying it in six court centres where about 86% of the cases decided that way were about flights or parking [[10]](#ref-10) [[11]](#ref-11). If a judge decides from documents without hearing anyone, a model reading the same documents is a cheaper judge. Germany already has tools reading cases like these, and at the Stuttgart appeal court, which had 13,384 diesel cases waiting in September 2022, OLGA sorts them and the judges decide [[12]](#ref-12). Sir Geoffrey Vos, the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, said in April 2026 that \"routine judicial decision-making will be informed or directed by machines\", and that programmes will decide many routine cases as well as human judges, \"in the first instance\" only when the parties agree [[13]](#ref-13).\n\nThen sentencing recommendations, with a human signing. Risk scores got there years ago, since Wisconsin's Supreme Court allowed COMPAS scores at sentencing in 2016 as long as they're never what decides it [[14]](#ref-14), so what I mean is the step after that, where a model drafts the sentence itself and a judge signs it.\n\nThen, a long way later, a model giving a sentence from video, location data and the evidence, with nobody signing. Every set of rules I could find says no to that today, from China's to Colombia's, where the Constitutional Court ruled in 2024 that AI can't stand in for a judge's reasoning or decision [[15]](#ref-15), and Vos says replacing judges would need new laws and the parties' fully informed consent, while warning that judges under pressure may end up just signing what a machine recommends [[16]](#ref-16).\n\nI'm not sure we should want that last step, but I think it comes anyway, because the backlog is what pushes all of this, and a court that takes two years to hear you is already failing [[17]](#ref-17) [[18]](#ref-18).\n\n- 33.7: months, the median from filing to trial for a civil case in US federal courts\n- 125,478: US federal civil cases waiting more than three years\n- 80,829: open cases in the Crown Court in England and Wales, the most on record\n\nHow long the wait is now\n\nWould you opt into an AI arbitrator for your own dispute?\n\n---\n\nMore in [Opinion](https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/opinion/index.md) · Older opinion [Red-teaming that gets better when you add compute](https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/red-teaming-that-scales-with-compute.md)\n\n- Older: [Red-teaming that gets better when you add compute](https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/red-teaming-that-scales-with-compute.md)\n- All posts: https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/index.md\n\n## References\n\nRead on 31 October 2026.\n\n[1] Northwestern University McCormick School of Engineering, \"Federal judges report broad adoption of AI tools\", 31 March 2026. Daniel Linna and V.S. Subrahmanian's survey, with Judge Xavier Rodriguez: 112 of 502 sampled federal judges answered, more than 60% had used at least one AI tool in their judicial work, and 22.4% use one weekly or daily. https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2026/03/federal-judges-report-broad-adoption-of-ai-tools\n\n[2] Robert J. Conrad, Director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, letter to Senator Chuck Grassley on the judiciary's use of AI, 21 October 2025. Source for the interim guidance sent to the courts on 31 July 2025, which allows AI use and cautions against delegating core judicial functions, including decision-making and case adjudication. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf\n\n[3] Los Angeles Times, \"AI pilot program in L.A. County courts will help judges craft rulings in some cases\", syndicated by AOL, March 2026. Source for six civil judges having access, the tool drafting tentative rulings that judges must review and edit before adopting them, civil motions only and no criminal courts. https://www.aol.com/news/ai-pilot-program-l-county-100000885.html\n\n[4] Estonia's Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, \"Estonia does not develop AI Judge\", 16 February 2022. Source for the ministry calling the 2019 reports misleading and saying there was no such project or ambition. What Estonia automated is its order-for-payment procedure, which isn't AI. https://www.justdigi.ee/en/news/estonia-does-not-develop-ai-judge\n\n[5] Supreme People's Court of China, Opinions on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Field, 8 December 2022, in China Justice Observer's English translation. Source for AI output being for reference only and the quoted rule. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/law/x/the-supreme-people-s-court-the-opinions-on-regulating-and-strengthening-the-applications-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-judicial-field-20221208\n\n[6] American Arbitration Association, \"AI Led Arbitration Rules\", amended 2026. Source for two-party disputes on the AAA's online platform, the parties agreeing to the AI arbitrator making a preliminary decision, and the human arbitrator who can approve, edit or rewrite any part of the draft award. https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/ai-led/ai-led-arbitration-rules\n\n[7] American Arbitration Association, \"AI Arbitrator FAQ\", 13 October 2025. Source for documents-only construction cases, every award staying the human arbitrator's, and testing showing resolution 20 to 25% faster and costs at least 35% lower. https://www.adr.org/news-and-insights/ai-arbitrator-faq/\n\n[8] ADR Chambers, \"ADR Chambers Launches aiADR, a Faster, Lower-Cost Arbitration Platform for Small-Dollar Disputes\", Toronto, 4 August 2026, a syndicated press release. Source for the aiADR Arbitrator making findings and reaching a decision, and a human arbitrator reviewing the award. https://smb.cloverdalereporter.com/article/ADR-Chambers-Launches-aiADR-a-Faster-Lower-Cost-Arbitration-Platform-for-Small-Dollar-Disputes/6a71d5231d8459b6854a71b0\n\n[9] Singapore Judiciary, \"New generative AI-powered case summarisation tool to help Small Claims Tribunals users\", 10 September 2025. Source for the tool built with Harvey, which summarises each side's case for Tribunal Magistrates and, from November 2025, people representing themselves, without giving legal advice. https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/media-release--new-generative-ai-powered-case-summarisation-tool-to-help-small-claims-tribunals-users\n\n[10] Civil Procedure Rule Committee, cover note to the consultation on small claims determined on paper, May 2026. Source for the proposal to let judges decide small claims on paper without the consent of all parties, after the PD51ZC pilot. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a32a7fd00ff27f06e3ef98d/sct-paper-determination-consultation-cover-note.pdf\n\n[11] DAC Beachcroft, \"Consultation begins on proposals for more final determinations without trial\", 19 May 2026. Source for the pilot running in six court centres from June 2022 and about 86% of the cases decided on paper being airline or parking matters. https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/what-we-think/consultation-begins-on-proposals-for-more-final-determinations-without-trial\n\n[12] Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Justice, press release on using AI for the diesel cases, 24 October 2022. Source for the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court's 13,384 pending diesel cases on 30 September 2022, the tool sorting them, and the judges checking and deciding. https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/service/presse/pressemitteilung/pid/einsatz-kuenstlicher-intelligenz-zur-bewaeltigung-der-diesel-verfahren\n\n[13] Local Government Lawyer, \"Routine judicial decision-making will be informed or directed by machines, Master of the Rolls says\", 6 May 2026, on Sir Geoffrey Vos's speech to the Judicial Institute for Scotland on 30 April 2026. Source for the three quoted lines. https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/100423-routine-judicial-decision-making-will-be-informed-or-directed-by-machines-master-of-the-rolls-says\n\n[14] Harvard Law Review, \"State v. Loomis\", 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1530, March 2017. Source for the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2016 ruling that a COMPAS risk score can be considered at sentencing but can't be determinative. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/03/state-v-loomis/\n\n[15] Ámbito Jurídico, \"ABC\" of Colombia's Constitutional Court ruling T-323 of 2024. Source for the judge having decided before using ChatGPT, and the court holding that AI can't replace the judge's reasoning, weighing of evidence or decision. https://ambitojuridico.com/sites/default/files/2024-10/ABC-SentenciaIA-T-323-24.pdf\n\n[16] Legal Cheek, \"Public likely to accept AI-made decisions in time, says top judge\", 24 August 2026, on Sir Geoffrey Vos's John Lehane Memorial Lecture in Sydney. Source for replacing judges needing legislation, fully informed consent as the line, and the warning about rubber-stamping. https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/08/public-likely-to-accept-ai-made-decisions-in-time-says-top-judge/\n\n[17] United States Courts, National Judicial Caseload Profile, 12 months ending 30 June 2026. Source for the 33.7-month median from filing to trial in civil cases and the 125,478 civil cases over three years old. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/fcms_na_distprofile0630.2026.pdf\n\n[18] Ministry of Justice, \"Criminal court statistics quarterly, April to June 2026\", 24 September 2026. Source for the Crown Court's 80,829 open cases at the end of June 2026, the highest on record. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026\n",
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "attributionRequired": true,
    "credit": "CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link the page or API address you took it from (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-31",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.7",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run",
    "terms": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data"
  },
  "page": {
    "breadcrumbs": [
      {
        "name": "Home",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/"
      },
      {
        "name": "Blog",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/"
      },
      {
        "name": "Opinion",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/opinion/"
      },
      {
        "name": "AI judges, not at the top courts yet",
        "url": ""
      }
    ],
    "description": "Vlad Cealicu on where AI already decides disputes or drafts rulings, from AI-led arbitration and paper-only small claims to a Los Angeles pilot, and the order he thinks the rest follows in, up to a sentence with nobody signing it.",
    "facts": [
      "Vlad Cealicu",
      "31 October 2026"
    ],
    "h1": "We already have AI judges, but not at the top courts yet",
    "image": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/assets/og/blog-ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet.png",
    "path": "/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet",
    "published": "2026-10-31",
    "section": "blog",
    "title": "AI judges, AI arbitrators and where courts are using AI now | Anchor Terminal",
    "toc": null,
    "updated": "2026-10-31",
    "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/blog/ai-judges-not-at-the-top-courts-yet"
  },
  "tokens": {
    "markdown": 3250,
    "slim": 1730
  },
  "version": 1
}