Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.5, Comment 1: judicial technology competence
Supreme Court of Arizona · Arizona
last revised 2026-01-01last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
country page →Court ruleIn forceCompetence
map categories:Judges' use of AITechnological competence
Unverified: we have not yet opened the official document at the linked address. The record is listed for completeness and excluded from search indexes until confirmed.
Arizona added an explicit technology-competence duty to its Code of Judicial Conduct. Comment 1 to Rule 2.5 now requires judges to have the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary to perform judicial responsibilities, including use and knowledge of the benefits and risks of relevant technology.
- Applies to
- judges
- Effective
- 01 Jan 2026
- Current version
- Comment 1 as amended · 01 Jan 2026
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
What the document requires
- Judicial competence under Rule 2.5 expressly includes the use of, and knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with, relevant technology
- Effective 1 January 2026
- Parallels the attorney technology-competence duty under Rule 42, ER 1.1, Comment 6
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comment 1 as amendedcurrent | 2026-01-01 | Adopted 27 August 2025, effective 1 January 2026 | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.5, Comment 1: judicial technology competence" (Supreme Court of Arizona, Comment 1 as amended, 2026-01-01), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-az-judicial-conduct-rule-2-5-technology-competence (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System: Final Report · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines · RI Supreme Court
- Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
- 22 NYCRR Part 161 — Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology · NY Unified Court System
- In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (generative AI), SC2026-0673 · Florida Supreme Court