Courts Technology Conference 2025 Key Takeaways

The 2025 edition of the Court Technology Conference (CTC) was held last week in Kansas City, Missouri. This blog features the observations of several MCP subject-matter experts who attended the biannual event, including:

• Jim Pingel, vice president, digital justice transformation
• John Ruggeri, project manager, court technologies
• Brad Smith, national client services director, justice and courts

AI in the Courts: Promise and Precautions (Jim Pingel)

Artificial intelligence (AI) was the headline topic at CTC, but the conversations showed that many, if not most, courts are approaching it with caution. For instance, judges worry about AI “hallucinations,” which occur when an AI platform uses large language models to generate outputs, which could lead to factually incorrect, misleading, or entirely fabricated information. Self-represented litigants often rely on generative AI solutions to draft their filings; however, these models can inadvertently invent case law or legal precedents. This poses a real risk.

The good news is that practical, court-ready applications are emerging. Instead of relying on generic tools like ChatGPT, some jurisdictions are turning toward small, specialized language models trained only on court-approved data. For example, the Michigan Supreme Court has piloted an AI solution built specifically from valid case filings. This approach reduces risk while streamlining routine tasks, such as reviewing filings for completeness and accuracy. The leading adopters appear to be starting small, with controlled pilots where the risks are well-documented and manageable.

The Shift Towards a "Best of Breed" Technology Model  (Jim Pingel)

Another central theme concerned the ongoing reliance on aging, “all-in-one” justice systems, many of which were built in the 1990s. While these systems once offered seamless workflows between jails, courts, prosecutors, and defenders, they are increasingly difficult to support today because they are approaching, or have reached, end of life. They lack flexibility, present cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and struggle to adapt to new legal requirements. Thus, the challenges in maintaining them have accumulated over time.

Consequently, the justice sector is shifting toward a “best of breed” model, where each entity — courts, prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, and corrections — procures a system tailored to its specific function, with disparate systems interconnected via modern integration and analytics layers. Of course, the age-old challenge of securing funding is a significant obstacle to this transition. The expiration of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and the uncertainty surrounding federal and state grants have left many court systems and allied organizations hesitant to move forward. Even jurisdictions not directly dependent on federal dollars are feeling the squeeze as budget priorities shift.

This is where MCP’s grant expertise is invaluable. We help clients identify and pursue available funding sources while also assisting them in developing strategies to maximize local resources.

The Need for Better Analytics  (Jim Pingel)

Finally, court officials continue to express a strong need for better analytics — tools that provide visibility into caseloads, outcomes, and long-term trends. However, many lack the resources or expertise to transform raw data into actionable insights. MCP works with clients to build data-governance frameworks, implement analytics solutions, and design dashboards that tell a clear story. With improved analytics, courts can make more informed decisions, allocate resources more effectively, and demonstrate accountability to stakeholders.

Cutting Through the AI Hype (John Ruggeri)

Many solutions labeled as “AI” today rely on technology that has been around for years — such as pattern recognition and predictive analytics. These tools are valuable, but they’re not brand new. What is new is the marketing hype. “AI-ready” has become the buzzword that vendors feel they must use, regardless of whether their tools truly are leveraging advanced AI.

For court leaders, the takeaway is simple: don’t get swept up in the hype. Ask vendors tough questions about how their AI tools really work. And look for solutions that are transparent, reliable, and tested in real-world settings.

Still, there are bright spots. Chatbots, for instance, are becoming more effective at guiding people through basic legal processes. Imagine a kiosk in a courthouse lobby that can assist someone in filing for a protective order by answering questions in plain language. That’s real progress in making justice more accessible.

As Jim Pingel notes above, one solution that stood out was Learned Hand’s AI tool designed to act like a virtual staff attorney for judges. What makes it different is its focus. Instead of pulling information from across the internet, which is prone to errors and “hallucinations,” it works within a closed, verified set of state laws and case filings.

In Michigan, for example, the tool was trained on the state’s Supreme Court cases. Lawyers helped refine the outputs to ensure accuracy, and now the vendor is rolling out the same model state by state. The result? Judges and staff get quick, reliable summaries and citations grounded in real law, not fabricated text. For courts considering AI, that kind of careful, walled-off approach is worth paying attention to.

Meanwhile, CTC’s keynoter, cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler, raised another critical point: AI is not just a tool for good — it’s also a tool for deception. Wheeler knows more than a little about this topic. She is chief security officer at CKW Global, which develops cyber-defense strategies for organizations operating in high-stakes environments, and is a renowned white hat hacker. Among the cyber threats she spotlighted are deepfakes and fabricated evidence, which are becoming more convincing by the day. Unlike early fakes that gave themselves away with odd visuals, today’s AI-generated images, videos, and text can be nearly impossible to spot.

That means courts will need to stay vigilant. While detection tools will improve, they’ll always be playing catch-up. At the end of the day, human judgment — from jurors, attorneys, and judges—remains the most important safeguard.

The overarching message from the conference was clear: AI should help, not replace human decision-making. Predictive models can be helpful, but they often lack understanding of fairness, context, and ethics. Courts must ensure that humans remain “in the loop” to make final judgments.

AI has the potential to make courts more efficient and accessible, but only if it’s implemented thoughtfully. The future for AI is promising, but it’s not magic — and it’s not a replacement for human judgment.

AI,  Modernization, and Change Management (Brad Smith)

AI was, unsurprisingly, a hot topic. On the one hand, courts face overwhelming volumes of data — millions of scanned documents, often of poor quality — that would take staff members decades to review. Here, AI offers a powerful solution: it tirelessly sorts, categorizes, and flags issues like illegible or missing records, seemingly at warp speed. Used correctly, AI can help courts refine data, identify trends, and make more informed decisions more quickly.

But as noted above, not everyone is convinced. Judges and attorneys worry about AI-generated filings or evidence that may be inaccurate, misleading, or even fabricated. Deepfakes — whether in video, audio, or text form — pose real risks to the justice system’s integrity. For many, the concern is that AI could create more work rather than less, especially when staff must double-check questionable outputs.

The key takeaway? AI is a tool, not a replacement for human judgment. Courts that embrace it gradually, with clear guardrails and quality data, are best positioned to reap its benefits while avoiding its pitfalls.

While AI generated headlines, the reality is that many courts are still decades behind in basic technology. Some jurisdictions still rely on case-management systems written in COBOL or running on mainframes built more than 30 years ago. Others continue to resist cloud adoption, despite its scalability, security, and disaster-recovery advantages.

This reliance on outdated systems creates inefficiencies at every level. Staff members spend time on workarounds, records are fragmented, and data quality suffers as a result. More critically, legacy systems expose courts to significant risks, e.g., cybersecurity vulnerabilities, lack of vendor support, and difficulty integrating with newer tools. These gaps hinder the very goals that courts are trying to achieve: efficiency, transparency, and better service to the public.

Modernization is also about opportunity. By moving to cloud-based platforms, courts can enhance public access, facilitate secure collaboration across agencies, and scale resources without incurring massive capital investment. Updated systems also enable the capture and analysis of data in ways that older platforms cannot, providing court leaders with the evidence they need to advocate for funding, staffing, and policy changes.

Still, modernization is not easy. Courts often operate on very tight budgets. When cuts come, they hit hard. Leadership changes also disrupt progress, with incoming officials hesitant to continue projects started under predecessors. These realities slow adoption, often leaving courts 15 to 20 years behind their peers in other sectors.

The solution lies in change management. Technology alone won’t deliver results unless courts bring stakeholders along, address concerns openly, and make staff members feel that they are part of the journey. Success comes from pairing new tools with the necessary training, governance, and cultural shifts to support them. In this regard, MCP can help, as we have an entire team of change management professionals who assist clients in forging new paths and leveraging new opportunities.

Another notable trend concerns the influx of vendors entering the court technology space. New players in the market provide courts with new opportunities to have systems meet their unique needs. But this also creates a need for careful evaluation to ensure the right fit. In other words, as new vendors flood the sector, courts must avoid the “shiny object” phenomenon by focusing on solutions that truly align with their operating environments. MCP is well-positioned to assist them in making those determinations.

Glenn Bischoff is MCP’s content specialist.