Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
State Bar of Michigan Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155: judicial use of artificial intelligence
State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics · Michigan
last revised 2023-10-27last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
Ethics opinionIn forceCompetenceSupervisionDisclosure
map categories:Judges' use of AITechnological competenceCourts' own AI deployment
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.
One of the earliest US judicial ethics opinions on AI. JI-155 treats technology competence as an ethical duty, requires judges to assess algorithmic bias before relying on AI, to document AI use in their reasoning on the record, and to keep decision-making human, with due-process concerns where AI is opaque.
- Applies to
- judges
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- JI-155 · 27 Oct 2023
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
What the document requires
- Technology competence is an ethical responsibility for all attorneys in Michigan
- Judges must assess potential algorithmic bias before relying on AI tools
- Judges must document their reasoning when using AI on the record
- Judges must distinguish between AI informing a decision and AI deciding a matter
- Judges must recognise due-process obligations where AI tools lack transparency
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| JI-155current | 2023-10-27 | Approved 27 October 2023; published 8 November 2023 | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "State Bar of Michigan Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155: judicial use of artificial intelligence" (State Bar of Michigan, Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, JI-155, 2023-10-27), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mi-judicial-ethics-opinion-ji-155 (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