No 'Horror' here: a reality check on AI in the courts

I suggest that Justice Arthur Gilbert's recent opinion piece entitled, "The horror! The horror!" (Daily Journal, April 6, 2026) is more than a little catastrophizing. The title of the article is a reference to Colonel Kurtz's final words in the 1979 movie masterpiece "Apocalypse Now," where the Colonel has a moment of deep clarity regarding the atrocities of war, his decline into madness and the inherent darkness of the human soul. (The movie is based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," a novel set in 19th century colonial Africa, exploring the same themes.) Atrocity, madness and darkness of the human heart is a lot of weight to place on the shoulders of an AI tool that might, someday, help judges and research attorneys come up with first drafts of orders and opinions.

Readers of these pages know that the Superior Court of Los Angeles County has seen vast increases in civil filings over the past few years. As Supervising Judge of our court's Civil Division, I am heavily engaged with others in court leadership in a search for innovations that will permit our judicial officers and court staff to more effectively meet our mission. Naturally, we are looking at, and cautiously evaluating, AI tools that might, someday, reliably and safely meet the mark.

But to suggest that we are in thrall to "a digital oracle to which we eagerly outsource not only our labor but our judgment," as Justice Gilbert writes, is simply wrong. The more accurate context was captured in recent comments by our Presiding Judge, Sergio Tapia II: "As the largest trial court in the nation, our judicial officers manage an extraordinary volume of cases, each often accompanied by thousands of pages of increasingly complex filings. With this partnership, we are carefully evaluating emerging technologies to determine how they may support judicial officers in working more efficiently and effectively. Let me be clear--while this tool may enhance the way judicial officers review and engage with case files and information, it will not replace, or in any way compromise, the sanctity, independence and impartiality of judicial decision-making." This same message was echoed by our Executive Officer and Clerk of Court, David Slayton: "Court leadership is unequivocal: generative AI will not make judicial decisions or replace judicial discretion. Any exploration of AI is limited to administrative or research support for judicial officers, and only with appropriate safeguards. Furthermore, judicial officers remain bound by Standard 10.80, and the court has adopted AI policies for judges and staff consistent with California Rule of Court 10.430."