The Human Element in the Age of AI: Judges Weigh in on Discovery and Deepfakes at Everlaw Summit '25
The legal profession stands at a powerful crossroads, defined by both the explosive growth of discoverable data and the rapid rise of generative AI. This environment challenges the core functions of the justice system, demanding that the judiciary reconcile its tradition of caution with the urgent need for innovation.
This tension between tradition and technology set the stage for a candid and compelling judges panel held on the final day of Everlaw Summit ‘25.
Moderated by Everlaw CLO Gloria Lee, the panel featured a distinguished group of legal leaders who brought perspectives from federal and state benches across the country, including Judge Joy Flowers Conti (W.D. Pa.), Judge David Cunningham (Superior Court, Los Angeles County), Judge Willie Epps (W.D. Mo.), Judge Young Kim (N.D. Ill.), and Judge Victoria Kolakowski (Superior Court, Alameda County).
They witnessed firsthand how technology is reshaping the legal landscape, grappling with the complexities of ediscovery, the challenges of authenticating digital evidence, and the potential impact of AI on everything from legal research to courtroom procedures.
The collective message from the bench was clear: While technology offers extraordinary tools for efficiency, the human judge remains the indispensable foundation for ensuring a fair, transparent, and credible justice system.
Bridging the Technology Gap
The conversation began by addressing the dichotomy between the legal technology industry’s rapid innovation and the judiciary’s characteristically cautious approach to adoption. Judge Conti, a veteran in the ediscovery world, acknowledged this in her opening remarks.
“I'd say the courts historically have lagged about ten years behind what is happening technology-wise in the legal profession,” Judge Conti said.
"Justice delayed is justice denied, and if AI can help reduce the timeline for some of these cases, it can be extraordinarily helpful."
Judge Epps also discussed his courtroom’s technology adoption journey, noting how excited he was when court migrated to a software program after years of using paper binders.
“When I joined the bench in 2017, I used to go to court with three ring notebook binders full of paper,” Judge Epps said. “Then the administrative office finally bought this incredible program called OneNote, and I was so giddy that we finally went paperless. Everything I do now is on my iPad. I had an intern once who said, ‘Judge, when I was in junior high school, my teacher used OneNote to give us our assignments. Why are you so excited about this antiquated Microsoft product?’ And I said, ‘Well, you take what you can get.’”
Judge Kolakowski also discussed how data security is a critical issue that is likely slowing down court adoption of technology.
“There are many people who are concerned about data security issues,” Judge Kolakowski said. “They're worried both about intrusions of outside networks and information into the local courts, and the idea that if you put something into a generative AI system, you're now making it public to the world. This fundamental concern prevents judges and court staff from utilizing powerful new tools for fear of compromising confidential case information.”
AI as the New Law Clerk
Despite the caution around judicial adoption of generative AI, the panel expressed genuine excitement about its potential as an essential tool for legal practitioners, especially in high-volume, complex cases. The sentiment was that AI is not a replacement, but a force multiplier.
“In L.A. County, our filings have doubled since the pandemic, and many of our judges are incredibly overworked,” Judge Cunningham said. “We have a lot of mass tort cases, many of them surrounding wildfire litigation in particular, and AI could be really useful in organizing that huge amount of data. Justice delayed is justice denied, and if AI can help reduce the timeline for some of these cases, it can be extraordinarily helpful.”
Judge Kim provided a practical, present-day example of how he uses AI tools in his practice to enhance his own efficiency and preparation.
“I’ve been using AI tools for things like summarizing long opinions and documents, creating timelines, drafting small paragraphs on standards that I am familiar with so I can easily verify the output, and similar use cases," Judge Kim said.
Alongside generative AI’s usefulness, however, the conversation also focused on trust and transparency with the technology. Judge Conti spoke about her fear that an over-reliance on technology like generative AI could erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“I worry about people not trusting the judiciary anymore,” Judge Conti said. “Transparency is very important, especially right now in the early stages of generative AI adoption.”
"There's a lot of discretion that we have to exercise as judges, and the human element is indispensable."
The judges agreed that the solution lies not just in waiting for new tools, but in proactive education and rule-making. Judge Cunningham noted the steps being taken in California, and how he’s thinking about AI now that he’s been appointed to chair an American Bar Association (ABA) working group. He stressed the need to educate on how AI impacts ethical obligations, particularly concerning competence and attorney-client privilege.
“There are a number of issues that we need to educate ourselves on when it comes to generative AI, both from a judicial perspective and also how it impacts your ethical obligations as attorneys,” Judge Cunningham said. “But they're extraordinary tools, and at least in California, we're trying to take the lead on this.”
The Problem of Deepfakes
Perhaps the most sobering portion of the panel focused on the threat of deepfakes and the immense pressure this places on the court’s fact-finding role.
Judge Kolakowski shared a powerful anecdote from a recent case where a self-represented litigant submitted videos that were clearly fabricated.
“We had a Ring camera video where the background is black and white, and the people in the front were in color,” Judge Kolakowski said. “There were videos where somebody was talking seemingly forever. And so it was obvious that those were really bad.”
The concern for the legal profession is generative AI’s rapid improvement, which has the potential to make it difficult for the court to determine what’s real, especially without forensic resources. This forces judges to rely on established, yet newly challenged, rules of authenticity.
"The hard part is that we tend to believe what the computer tells us,” Judge Kolakowski said. “We tend to believe what our eyes show us. And how do we get past that? How can we address a world where we can't believe what we can't believe? We can't necessarily assume that something that somebody that we trust hands us is actually real."
The Indispensable Human Element
Concluding the panel, Gloria brought the focus back to the fundamental nature of the judiciary: solving human problems. The judges unanimously affirmed that no technology, no matter how advanced, can replace judicial discretion, judgment, and empathy.
The core message centered on three vital principles: fairness, perception, and human observation.
“Efficiency is important,” Judge Kim said. “You all are here to be efficient in your work. But as judges, we also have to be concerned about perception. Perception is our reality, and for the third branch to have credibility, we have to be perceived as fair.”
Judge Epps highlighted the democratizing potential of generative AI for increasing access to justice, stating it will improve the quality of filings for those who cannot afford representation. However, he also warned against eliminating the human factor.
“There's a lot of discretion that we have to exercise as judges, and the human element is indispensable,” Judge Epps said. “As long as we’re dealing with human problems, humans can’t be eliminated from the decision making process. The law evolves, and society evolves, but as the technology changes, we have to present a human reaction to it.”
Finally, Judge Kolakowski offered the panel’s closing sentiment on the limits of technology in the courtroom, distinguishing between questions of law and questions of fact—the latter of which relies entirely on human observation:
"When it comes to questions of fact, I cannot imagine anytime in the near future where a machine can decide that,” Judge Kolakowski said. “We need to have a human, whether it's a jury or a judge, who can evaluate the evidence and decide what makes sense and what doesn't, and what's real and what's not."
The panel offered a valuable bridge between the urgency of technological innovation and the enduring principles of fairness, transparency, and human judgment that define the rule of law. It served as a powerful reminder that while AI is an essential tool for the legal community, the final verdict will always be rendered by a human judge.
