Cal. (statewide): California Rules of Court, Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80 (U…
Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025) · Judicial Council of California (statewide)
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- California Rules of Court, Standard of Judicial Administration 10.80 (Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers)
- Order date
- September 1, 2025
Summary
Judicial officers should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information (SSNs, dates of birth, addresses, medical information, sealed documents) into a public generative AI system.
What does the order require?
- Judicial officers should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information (SSNs, dates of birth, addresses, medical information, sealed documents) into a public generative AI system.
- Judicial officers should not use generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on protected classifications.
- Judicial officers should take reasonable steps to verify that generative AI material is accurate, and should take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output.
- Judicial officers should take reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content.
- Judicial officers should consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.
Practice areas: statewide judicial administration
What the standard requires
Standard 10.80 is California’s first statewide standard governing judicial officers’ use of generative AI. It is an advisory standard (uses “should” rather than “shall”); no specified penalties attach. The companion mandatory rule, California Rules of Court Rule 10.430, applies to courts as institutions and required each California superior, appellate, and supreme court to either adopt a written generative-AI use policy by December 15, 2025, or prohibit the use of generative AI by court personnel.
The standard’s scope is judicial officers (judges, justices, temporary and assigned judges, subordinate judicial officers). It does not apply directly to attorneys, parties, or pro se litigants; those constituencies remain governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable local rules of court, and any individual chambers orders or trial-court orders addressing AI in filings.
The five operative obligations are (1) confidentiality (no PII or sealed information into public AI systems), (2) anti-discrimination (no use that discriminates based on protected classes), (3) verification (reasonable steps to verify AI output and correct hallucinations), (4) bias removal (reasonable steps to remove biased or offensive content), and (5) disclosure consideration (judicial officers should consider whether to disclose AI use in public-facing content).
Quotable lines
“Should take reasonable steps to verify that generative AI material is accurate, and should take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output.”
“Should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system.”