Penn Launches AI Fluency Program for Judges

The University of Pennsylvania has started a program to build artificial intelligence literacy among judges, as courts grapple with AI-related discovery disputes.

Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence

Photograph of a weathered granite civic building facade with deep window bays under an overcast sky, with a bare flagpole at one corner. — The University of Pennsylvania has launched a program to build artificial intelligence literacy among federal judges as courts weigh AI-related discovery disputes. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should courts be allowed to use AI tools to help judges work more efficiently?

The University of Pennsylvania launched a program to build AI fluency among judges. Federal courts are working through how AI-assisted materials fit within privilege and work-product protections.

Why it matters

Courts are increasingly ruling on whether prompts, AI responses, and chat histories are protected in litigation. Judges without a working understanding of the technology face harder calls on these disputes.

Courts distinguish between attorney-directed AI use and independent client research when assessing protection. Consumer AI platforms may defeat confidentiality under existing privacy policies.

The players

Judge Joshua D. Wolson

Judge Wolson serves as a U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been involved in discussions of AI in federal litigation.

University of Pennsylvania

The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia that launched the judicial AI fluency program.

The details

Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is among the judicial figures tied to the effort. Courts evaluate AI-related disputes by separating factual material from litigation strategy, and work-product protection can survive AI assistance if materials were created for litigation and not disclosed to adversaries.

Article on the Penn judicial AI fluency program was published November 6, 2026.

Legal Context

Federal courts applying the work-product doctrine must now decide whether materials produced with generative AI qualify for protection. Recent rulings on prompts and chat histories are beginning to define those boundaries.

Anyone using consumer AI tools for legal research or document drafting should assume their inputs may not be confidential under standard platform privacy policies. Attorneys should keep AI use tied to counsel-directed litigation work to preserve protection.

The takeaway

Treat AI prompts and outputs as potentially discoverable unless they are created at counsel's direction for litigation and kept from adversaries. Judges and attorneys alike benefit from understanding how these tools handle data.