KY HB 498: Use of artificial intelligence by courts

Operative sections

• Section 1(1): requests that the Kentucky Supreme Court establish an AI court transcription pilot project.
• Section 1(2): pilot rules would require participating courts to use AI transcription services and notify parties in advance.
• Section 1(3): Administrative Office of the Courts would evaluate cost savings, efficiency, and whether to expand the program.

Text

The General Assembly respectfully requests that the Supreme Court of Kentucky establish a pilot project to permit participating courts to use artificial intelligence for transcription services in court proceedings. ... The pilot project shall ... require participating courts to use artificial intelligence for transcription services in court proceedings; ... require notification to all parties ... that artificial intelligence will be used for transcription services.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Kentucky

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• KBA E-457: The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of LawKentucky Bar Association · 2024-03-15

  Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457, issued 15 March 2024, addresses generative AI under the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers may use AI but must be competent in the technology, verify its output, protect client confidences, and supervise staff. There is no mandatory duty to disclose AI use to clients unless the client asks or the use is material.

Decisions on the record

• Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al.United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · 2026-05-28

  On 2026-05-28, in Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al, the Western District of Kentucky warned the filer that future use of false, nonexistent, or unsupported authorities may result in sanctions. Counsel filed a response using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and authorities used for propositions they did not support.

• A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of KentuckyKentucky Court of Appeals · 2026-05-22

  On 2026-05-22, in A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed and noted that the circuit court had already warned mother about non-existent case law. A self-represented appellant filed a motion using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and nonexistent or hallucinated authorities.

• Sherdena Rocky Ali v. Carlos Efre IdiokitasKentucky Court of Appeals · 2026-05-01

  The Kentucky Court of Appeals on 2026-05-01 warned the self-represented appellant to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Sherdena Rocky Ali v. Carlos Efre Idiokitas. The self-represented appellant filed a brief with two fabricated case citations.

• Pamela Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.Kentucky Court of Appeals · 2026-03-20

  On 2026-03-20, Kentucky Court of Appeals struck the appellant’s brief and allowed refiling after repeated hallucinated precedent and deficient AI certifications. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with nine false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Co. v. Thompson, 11.