david berrey
[email protected]
480 370 9538

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
PETITION TO AMEND PROPOSED RULE 135 ON AI USE

Critique of Proposed Rule 135 (In the Spirit of Holmes):
The law lives not by fear, but by reason. Rule 135, in postponing AI until 2029, is less a rule and more a prolonged nap. “Qui timet futurum, praesens deficit”—he who fears the future fails the present. Courts tied to 2024 tools will drown in a sea of AI-assisted filings. To forbid AI is to invite judicial paralysis—while the world races ahead.

Proposed Amendment:

Judges shall have access to the best AI tools available, while remaining the final arbiter.

AI-assisted work must be disclosed openly—sunlight is the best disinfectant.

AI outputs must be verifiable—no ghosts in the machine.

Judges shall receive immediate training, lest they become strangers to their own courtrooms.

Public access to court-approved AI tools ensures justice is not only seen but shared.

Internal audits ensure that AI serves the law, not the other way around.

Rule 135 would have us bury our heads. Our proposal says, “Fiat iustitia”—let justice be done—while facing the future, not hiding from it.

Before any moratorium is considered, the Steering Committee must first answer a basic question: how will courts determine if AI was involved in a ruling? Without that answer, Rule 135 is a blindfold. Our proposal ensures the courts don’t stumble into the future but lead it—with AI’s power fully understood, and fully governed.[img]/Portals/4/Users/127/51/1151/Follow_Up_to_AZ_Supreme_Court_AI_Steering_Committee_2026-01-26_1.docx[/img][img]/Portals/4/Users/127/51/1151/Follow_Up_to_AZ_Supreme_Court_AI_Steering_Committee_2026-01-26_1.docx[/img][img]/Portals/4/Users/127/51/1151/Follow_Up_to_AZ_Supreme_Court_AI_Steering_Committee_2026-01-26_1.docx[/img]

James R. Knapp
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
18380 N 40th St
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-372-2928
[email protected]
Arizona State Bar No. 021166

Gregory S. Como
Maricopa County Superior Court
201 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ, 85003
(602) 372-0754
[email protected]
Bar no. 013187

Hon. Pamela S. Gates
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
125 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 506-6391
Bar No. 017234

Hon. Danielle J. Viola
Associate Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
3131 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
(602) 506-3442
Bar No. 019885

Kevin D. Heade
AZ State Bar # 029909
P.O. Box 2457
Florence, AZ 85132
(480) 251-8534
[email protected]



I support Proposed Rule 135 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, both as a member of the bar and as a member of the public. Members of the bar and the general public both expect human beings to be judges. The proposal ensures that confidence in the judiciary—already at historically low levels—is not undermined by unchecked, unregulated, and untested reliance on undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence. Rather than conflict with current work of the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (“AISC”), Proposed Rule 135 aligns with it. This Court should adopt the proposal and instruct AISC to issue rules and frameworks requiring disclosure when generative artificial intelligence is used in core judicial work so that it may be studied and used safely.

Christopher P. Staring
Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 2
400 W. Congress St.
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 628-6947
[email protected]
State Bar No. 011110

Because I am deeply concerned about the potential impact of generative AI in the performance of core judicial work, I write in support of this petition (R-26-0020). I currently serve as Chair of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, in addition to serving as Chief Judge of Division 2 of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Rule 1.2, Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, provides that "[a] judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary...." Rule 2.5 requires judges to perform their duties "competently" and "diligently." The use of generative AI in the performance of core judicial work creates unreasonable risks of these provisions being violated. The use of AI by attorneys has already led to a number of high profile, embarrassing incidents around the country. (A March 26, 2026 Georgia Supreme Court argument in Payne v. The State, which can be found on YouTube, provides a chilling example.) A similar incident, albeit inadvertent, could damage public confidence in Arizona's judiciary. As a former superior court judge, I understand the demands placed upon our trial court judges, who have the most difficult job in the judiciary. But I disagree that generative AI provides a good solution at this time.

Hon. Andrew J. Becke, et al.
Arizona Court of Appeals
1501 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email protected]
Bar No. 025362

Filed: April 29, 2026

Response of Certain Judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals in support of Petition to Add Rule 135.

On behalf of:
Robert M. Brutinel, Chair
On behalf of the Arizona Steering Committee on
Artificial Intelligence and the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3327
Phone: (602) 452-3301
[email protected]

The Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts hereby submits the attached Comment.

Erik Thorson
Arizona Tax Court
101 W. Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: 602-506-8288

Greg Sakall
Judge, Division 23
Pima County Superior Court
110 W Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 724-8301
[email protected]

Comment of the State Bar of Arizona

Jessica J. Fotinos, Bar No. 019777
General Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
(602) 340-7236
[email protected]

Andrew M. Jacobs
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
1501 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 452-6780
Arizona Bar No. 021446
[email protected]

Reply in support of Petition