Send a text
United States District Judge Allison Goddard of the Southern District of California joins Legal Regards for an in-depth discussion on AI use by the judiciary and how federal judges actually read and evaluate filings.
Judge Goddard discusses how and why she has incorporated AI tools into her chambers. She explains her use of tools such as Perplexity for research assistance and workflow efficiency, as well as broader tools being explored within the Ninth Circuit, including Westlaw AI, Lexis Protégé, VLex, and Learned Hand. The conversation addresses what these systems are designed to do, where they add value, and where judicial judgment must remain paramount.
Judge Goddard also describes how she has used AI to create internal research collections, including Social Security order databases built in tools such as NotebookLM, CoCounsel, and Lexis Vault. These collections allow her to prompt against her own prior orders to maintain consistency across fact-specific rulings. She explains how AI can assist in identifying recurring issues and patterns that are otherwise difficult to locate through traditional keyword searches, particularly in highly fact-dependent areas of law. At the same time, she draws a clear line between workflow assistance and substantive judicial interpretation.
The discussion explores her use of AI to draft limited portions of orders, particularly to summarize the parties’ arguments in a neutral and efficient manner. Rather than relying on lengthy block quotations, she explains how AI can help rephrase or synthesize arguments while preserving accuracy. She also addresses her concerns about using AI for judicial interpretation or doctrinal reasoning, emphasizing that constitutional adjudication and statutory construction require independent human judgment.
Judge Goddard explains why she is opposed to broad standing orders regulating AI use in her courtroom. She articulates her reasoning, including the view that existing professional responsibility rules and existing doctrines already provide tools to address misuse, and that rigid standing orders may be overinclusive or counterproductive.
The episode also includes practical guidance for attorneys. Judge Goddard offers concrete advice on how lawyers can avoid AI-related ethical missteps, including hallucinated citations, inaccurate factual assertions, and overreliance on automated summaries. She discusses how lawyers can responsibly use AI tools to enhance clarity, organization, and efficiency without compromising candor to the tribunal.
Finally, she addresses how she discusses AI use with law clerks and interns, including the guidance she provides her personnel. The conversation situates AI adoption within the broader judicial obligation to ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency.
Topics include
• Judicial discretion and decision-making
• Why Judge Goddard opposes standing orders on AI
• Use of Perplexity in chambers and research workflows
• AI tools being tested in the Ninth Circuit: Westlaw AI, Lexis Protégé, VLex, and Learned Hand
• Building Social Security order databases using NotebookLM, CoCounsel, and Lexis Vault
• Using AI to maintain consistency across fact-specific rulings
• Drafting assistance: summarizing arguments versus block quoting
• Ethical risks of generative AI and judicial interpretation concerns
• Guidance to clerks and interns on responsible AI use
• Practical advice for lawyers to avoid AI-related professional responsibility violations
Legal Regards is an official podcast of The National Law Review.
