HF5155

Purpose

This bill requires that official verbatim court records created with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) tools include human oversight. Its goal is to ensure court records are accurate, complete, and faithfully reflect what was spoken or occurred in court, with a clear process to verify and certify the record.

Main provisions

• Key terms defined:
  • Artificial intelligence-based tool: software or systems using AI (including machine learning, natural language processing, large language models) to generate, analyze, or transcribe audio, video, or text for creating an official court record.
  • Official verbatim court record: the official transcript or recording of court proceedings as required by law and court rules.
  • Qualified court reporter: a stenographer who meets the Supreme Court’s minimum qualifications.
  • Court: the Minnesota Supreme Court, district courts, and appellate courts.
• Prohibition on AI-only creation:
  • The outputs of an AI-based tool cannot be the sole basis for creating the official court record.
• Mandatory human oversight:
  • Any AI-generated output used to create an official court record must be overseen by a qualified court reporter.
  • Oversight includes real-time monitoring, post-process review, verification that the transcript/record accurately reflects spoken words, context, and intent, and certification by the court reporter that the record meets all laws and standards.
• Supreme Court oversight policies:
  • The Supreme Court must establish or maintain policies guiding human oversight over AI-assisted creation of official records before such tools are used.
• Discrepancies:
  • If there is a mismatch between the AI output and the human-verified official record, the human-verified record controls.
• Certification and documentation:
  • Official records produced with AI must include a certification by a qualified court reporter about accuracy, oversight, and the AI tool used.
  • The court must keep documentation of the oversight process, including who performed oversight and how accuracy was verified, for a period that matches record retention rules (or as court rules specify).
• Exceptions:
  • The rule does not apply to unofficial recordings or transcripts, as long as they are labeled unofficial and not submitted as part of the official record.

Significant changes to existing law

• Establishes a new statutory requirement (Minnesota Statutes section 484.721) to ensure human oversight in AI-assisted creation of official court records.
• Introduces formal oversight responsibilities for qualified court reporters, required certification, and record-keeping related to AI-assisted transcripts or recordings.
• Ties the retention and compliance aspects to existing record-keeping rules and court rules (e.g., retention periods).

Potential impacts

• Courts: more checks and accountability when using AI tools to draft records; potential workflow changes and training needs for staff.
• Litigants and the public: increased confidence in the accuracy of official records.
• AI tool developers: clearer rules on when and how AI can be used in official records and what oversight must accompany it.

Relevant Terms - official verbatim court record - artificial intelligence-based tool - human oversight - qualified court reporter - real-time monitoring - post-process review - accuracy certification - discrepancy - transcription/record accuracy - record retention - Minnesota Supreme Court policies - court proceedings