In the legal profession, where careers are often built on precedent and procedure, Justice Tanya R. Kennedy has forged a path all her own.

With a career spent entirely in the public sector and in the service of the law, she comes to the bench with a perspective gained through decades spent in its institutions.

And now, with generative AI already transforming the legal profession, Justice Kennedy is grappling with the pressing questions facing the legal community today.

How can we ensure a fair process for every litigant, from corporate clients to self-represented individuals? As technology reshapes our workflows, how do we safeguard the essential human judgment that defines the practice of law?

Justice Kennedy sat down with Everlaw to discuss these issues and more, including why she believes generative AI is here to stay.

I was hoping we could start with you telling me a little bit about your legal career and how you ended up on the bench?

My entire career has been in the public sector.

I began my legal career at the New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, where I handled juvenile delinquency cases. From there, I transferred to the Family Court Division of the New York City Law Department, where I represented the City of New York in various personal injury actions. And after that, I was a Principal Law Clerk for Justice Barry A. Cozier (Ret.) in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, where I handled complex commercial cases. I continued serving in that capacity when Justice Cozier was elevated to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

I have been fortunate that various individuals recognized my potential and provided me with opportunities to showcase my talents and gifts. I remained open-minded and flexible to other opportunities when they arose.

And what I mean by that is, for example, when I went to work at the Family Court Division of the Corporation Counsel. Initially, I had hoped to be placed in another division, but I wasn't going to turn down the offer when it came. I kept an open mind, and that was one of the best decisions I ever made because I received a lot of responsibility very early on, being responsible for the prosecution of a case from its inception to disposition, handling large caseloads, being in the courtroom every day, interviewing civilian witnesses, and police officers.

And when it came to being a judge, that really wasn't in my purview because I didn't know any judges. I didn't know how to become a judge.

My former supervisor at Corporation Counsel, Betty Lawrence Lewis, told me that I would be a judge. And I laughed because I didn't see myself in that role.

Years later, another female judge approached me with the idea of becoming a judge, and I still wasn't ready. However, while working for Justice Cozier, I began to think more about it because I could start to see myself in that role.

That's why I tell this story time and again. I think it's so important that you speak into the lives of others because very often people see things in you that you don't see in yourself. This is why we must encourage and inspire one another.

You’ve presided over cases across multiple court divisions. How has your experience shaped your perspective on the legal system overall, as well as how discovery practices can impact case outcomes across different types of law?

It was a huge benefit to be involved in various courts across the legal system, first as an intern, then as an attorney, and finally as a judge.

Being in various courts provided me with a broad perspective on how the legal system works and how it's experienced through the lens of litigants. Each court really has its own character and culture.

"I know there's talk about jobs being replaced, and while I can't answer that, I do believe that new jobs will be created as a result of this technology. And those who fail to embrace it are going to be left behind."

• Share this quote:

Let's take Civil Court, for example, which is referred to as the People's Court. Certainly, the perceptions of self-represented litigants in Civil Court may be much different from those of a corporate litigant in Supreme Court. It also depends on where the court is situated. I'm in New York City, and each borough has its own unique characteristics.

When you're talking about Criminal Court, or even Family Court, and you're looking at whether or not to set bail, or whether or not you're going to remand a respondent in a juvenile delinquency case, it’s hugely consequential.

I think that how you preside over a case and handle the discovery process not only influences the outcome but also affects how people perceive the fairness of the system.

But I'll also say this. I attended a recent event at my alma mater, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where Professor Michelle Adams discussed her recently authored book, entitled The Containment. During the conversation, Professor Adams spoke about what makes a good judge, which included having an open mind and considering all of the facts before rendering a decision.

And I chimed in and talked about the importance of having your finger on the pulse of the human condition. I've said this several times when speaking to different audiences, and it's important. Yes, you need legal knowledge, but you also need an overall understanding of what's going on in the world to relate to the situation, the litigants, and the circumstances.

What role do you see technology playing in the courts as it continues to evolve, and what sorts of opportunities and risks do you see for both courts and litigants in adopting tools?

My disclaimer is that everything I say represents the view of Tanya R. Kennedy, and I'm not representing my court or the New York State Unified Court System. However, I would like to emphasize that AI and generative AI are here to stay.

The bottom line is that it's so important for all of us to embrace it. Regarding the New York State court system, I believe they are in the process of drafting a statewide policy that will be released soon.

I'm excited that states across the country, including bar and judicial associations, are starting conversations about how state courts can begin using AI.

When I served as the presiding member of the New York State Bar Association Judicial Section, we hosted three webinars for judges and attorneys on generative AI. One of them actually featured a live demonstration on how you could use generative AI to draft jury charges.

I know lawyers are starting to use it. Firms are building their own platforms and investigating different use cases. But it's crucial that we judges and attorneys continue to learn and to be aware of our ethical obligations because the technology is so fast-paced and continually evolving.

I read an article a couple of weeks ago about the various law schools that are now implementing generative AI into their curriculum, as well as ediscovery. And I think that's really key because that’s where the legal profession is going.

I know there's talk about jobs being replaced, and while I can't answer that, I do believe that new jobs will be created as a result of this technology. And those who fail to embrace it are going to be left behind.

In terms of the education side of things and putting on webinars, do you feel like the court has a responsibility to put that sort of education out there, or do you think it should be a shared burden, so to speak, between the courts and the attorneys and bar associations?

I'm going to tweak your question and my answer a little bit because I believe that the bench and bar should always work together to advance the profession.

For example, I am aware that an upcoming symposium at Fordham Law School, sponsored by the Commercial Division Advisory Council of the New York State Unified Court System, will feature a panel discussion between the Honorable Katherine B. Forrest (Ret.) and Associate Professor Chinmayi Sharma on the topic of artificial intelligence. That is an example of the bench and bar working together. I think it's a shared responsibility. It's great that judges, attorneys, and law students will come together at Fordham Law, where those who are in the trenches with technology will share their knowledge.

"With generative AI, we often talk about efficiency and doing things faster and smarter, but you still have to verify. You have to get into this mindset that it's not the end-all or be-all. It's a tool."

• Share this quote:

There are some judges, like Judge Xavier Rodriguez, who are in the trenches. He studies, and he speaks, and everyone learns from him. And I'm sure he also learns from the practitioners. I really see it as a give-and-take.

I have put myself out there to learn, and I'm still learning. That’s so key because there will come a time when my court will review these matters, and I can say, "Yes, I'm familiar with this.” Judges are not supposed to be skilled at everything, but just having a working knowledge is so important.

What are your thoughts on generative AI’s potential from a judges’ perspective, whether to support judicial decision-making, or at least streamline judicial workflows?

I have not used generative AI for appellate division work, but I've used it in everyday life.

I taught over the summer and used it for tasks such as creating class notes, devising catchy titles for my syllabus, and summarizing.

I'll tell you what my wish list is. I addressed this in 2023 when I was the keynote speaker at the Kiroff Bench Bar Conference, sponsored by the Toledo Bar Association. I talked about how I thought you could really use generative AI to make courts more efficient. I spoke about optimizing hearing schedules, checking attorney availability, utilizing courtrooms, prioritizing cases, indexing documents for easy retrieval in complex cases, and ensuring filings adhere to procedural requirements.

There’s even the potential of having chatbots on the court website to answer basic questions, such as procedural matters, which can free up clerical staff. It can certainly reduce their workload and resolve basic inquiries more easily.

Like I said, that’s my wish list. And the thing is, we already know that attorneys are using it for drafting complaints, contracts, and some of that busy work, allowing them to focus on more substantive tasks.

And yes, some state judges are using it. I think federal judges are more so because they have more resources compared to state courts.

I watched a webinar over the summer where Judge Scott Schlegel moderated a discussion between Judge Allison Goddard and Judge Xavier Rodriguez. Both judges shared how they use generative AI for drafting orders and summarizing testimony by utilizing their own work product and materials. I think the future is bright.

What we have to do is buy into it and embrace it. Judge Goddard said it's like “a thought partner.” It's like a first draft.

What ethical or procedural guardrails do you believe should be in place for the use of generative AI by litigants, attorneys, and judges?

The key is education. 

In New York, we have the Rules of Professional Conduct, and I think that’s enough. I would never tell a judge what they can or cannot do because they have discretion.

I know there's been this tension between various judges, especially in federal court, where there's been a lot of discussion and pushback from attorneys about how some of these standing orders being released by judges are overbroad.

I believe following the ethical guidelines is enough. I think that’s more practical. It seems to me, reading the various commentary, that it often may appear that if the judge had a better understanding of the technology, perhaps the orders would not be worded in a certain way.

For example, does that mean when you're using Grammarly, you have to disclose such use to the judge? And prohibiting it totally doesn’t seem like the right solution either. I agree with the arguments that have been made about these kinds of bans stifling innovation and creativity.

"I've said a number of times that leadership is a mindset. It's value-driven. And so, when we're looking at generative AI and discussing topics like cost, closing the justice gap, transparency, and responsible use, all of these factors are interconnected."

• Share this quote:

In 2023, I was on a panel on ethics and generative AI, and one of my fellow panelists,  Dr. Shokouh H. Abadi, talked about how, in the context of the legal profession, generative AI improves mental wellness. That’s something I’ve now bought into because this profession is stressful enough. There are never enough hours in the day, and if we can ease the burden by having more time to do other things, that also improves wellness.

With generative AI, we often talk about efficiency and doing things faster and smarter, but you still have to verify. You have to get into this mindset that it's not the end-all or be-all. It's a tool.

I don't think it should be prohibited, but I do believe that if you're going to use a generative AI platform, you have to represent that you’ve verified its responses.

You’ve spoken often about the importance of equity in the legal system. How do you see generative AI helping to improve equity and access to justice?

I always believe that the glass is half full rather than empty. However, I think the legal profession is now becoming more sensitized to this justice gap.

I like that various companies and technologists are now willing to donate their time and services to public service organizations.

I believe there's a greater sensitivity, and people are going to lean in to work together to find out what we can do to bring the average Jane and Joe into the equation. It's not just about a lack of education and income; it's also about certain areas where underprivileged people don't have the necessary bandwidth.

I think that young people, even those who are young at heart, are really going to come together to figure out how we bring these people into the equation. Because that's really what it is. You need cheerleaders to speak to this, to say, “We need your help, how can we do this together?”

This is such an exciting time with innovation and creativity. I know it can be done.

And once again, it's about the partnership between the private and public sectors, and the community at large. You have to hold these entities accountable and ask for transparency. That’s where the focus has to be.

I also wanted to ask about the instance you had in your courtroom a few months back, where a self-represented litigant used an avatar created using generative AI to present their case. Can you describe how you interpreted that situation?

I know that moment went viral, appearing on TikTok and every platform you can imagine.

An individual claimed that, due to certain physical challenges, he was unable to communicate with the court and wanted an opportunity to make a video presentation. However, the presiding justice at oral argument noted that the litigant misled the court, as this individual previously appeared before the court to argue a case and had held a conversation with staff members in the clerk’s office for over thirty minutes.  And if you look at that video, you can see that the litigant’s claim of his inability to communicate was inaccurate.

The presiding justice at oral argument also indicated that this individual would not use this avatar to promote his business. So that's not really an access to justice issue, right? That's being disingenuous because the avatar didn't even look like him. Remember, the self-represented litigant claimed he wanted to present his own video, right? That wasn't the case.

It’s one thing to say you’re a pro se litigant and want to present to the court, but it’s an entirely other thing to be disingenuous and to attempt to use that platform to promote a business.

This leads me to one more point I want to discuss regarding generative AI.

It's a tool, and it's not going to replace humans because it's about judgment. A machine can’t always pick up on things like creativity and nuances, which is an important point to make because, as we know, the law can be gray.

A machine is not going to fill in the gaps, but humans will.

Switching gears a bit, you’ve been a major advocate for a number of different causes throughout your career, serving as a mentor, board member to various organizations and nonprofits, and even founding your own speakers’ bureau targeting at-risk youth, as well as teaching a juvenile justice seminar for a decade at Fordham Law. How does this work influence your judicial practice?

Service is in my background.

I come from a single-parent household, and my mother and maternal grandmother always served, whether in the community, at their church, or elsewhere. That’s what I grew up with, and that's something I enjoy.

As it relates to young people, I remember when I was growing up, there were adults who poured their energy into me and mentored me. And I think it's important to give back.

I like the concept of reverse mentoring because now I have some former interns who I consider my mentors, and I’ve learned from them.

Those who are more senior and advanced in the profession must be humble and open-minded enough to recognize that younger professionals have much to offer, and we can learn from them. It's a give-and-take where we can both learn from each other.

As for speaking at events, I'm really just honored that people want to hear from me and that they feel I have something to impart. I enjoy sharing my thoughts and knowledge, but I also want to inspire, challenge the audience, and give them things to think about.

It's about learning, sharing, and connecting to a broader legal community. Leadership and mentorship are important, and it's important to get out of your silos and connect and share with others.

And lastly, thinking about the leadership and mentorship ideas you touched on, I was wondering if you have any advice for this next generation of judges and lawyers who are coming up with generative AI and all these new types of legal technology? Is there anything you think it’s particularly important for them to know?

It's all about ethical use.

Earlier, when I talked about having your finger on the pulse of the human condition, this all ties into the point about ethical use and transparency.

I've said a number of times that leadership is a mindset. It's value-driven. And so, when we're looking at generative AI and discussing topics like cost, closing the justice gap, transparency, and responsible use, all of these factors are interconnected.

It's like a hand. If you lose one finger, everything is thrown off. It's the same thing here. Judges, lawyers, technologists, law students, law professors, legal professionals, and the entire legal community, we’re all in this together, and we have to stay connected to advance the profession.