Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (judicial use of artificial intelligence)
West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission · West Virginia
last revised 2023-10-13last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
Ethics opinionIn forceProhibitionVerification dutyConfidentialityCompetence
map categories:Judges' use of AIDuty to verify AI outputClient data in AI tools
Answering an inquiry about judges' use of AI, the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission applied Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4(B), 2.5(A) and 2.7 and concluded that a judge may use AI for research but not to decide a case's outcome, and that drafting opinions or orders with AI demands extreme caution.
- Applies to
- judges
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- Original · 13 Oct 2023
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
What the document requires
- A judge may use AI for research purposes but may not use it to decide the outcome of a case
- The use of AI in drafting opinions or orders should be done with extreme caution because of built-in or perceived bias
- AI is analogous to a law clerk: the judge must decide the ruling, direct the tool accordingly, and review the final draft for current law and accuracy
- Responsibility for the finished product rests solely with the judge — 'AI made me do it' is no defence
- Judges must research an AI product's data handling and refrain from inputting information that may be retained or disclosed, especially in juvenile and abuse-and-neglect matters
- Plagiarism and attribution are additional concerns when drafting with AI
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Originalcurrent | 2023-10-13 | Initial publication | official |
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (judicial use of artificial intelligence)" (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission, Original, 2023-10-13), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22 (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