FAIR Act – First-instance AI Review Act. AI-Enhanced Judicial Integrity Act.

Baron de Montesquieu was absolutely right when he wrote in his book - The Spirit of the Laws (1748): "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice."

After years litigating in LA courts, I came to a painful realization: many LA judges I had experience to meet no longer care to work with integrity, impartiality, or even basic adherence to law and no accountability for that.

Nowadays, indeed, there is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated by LA Judges under the shield of law and in the name of justice in LA Courts.

See how Judges cover up each other to show people in california their disrespect: 

Under McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 6, 11, LA courts declared that “erroneous rulings against a litigant, even when numerous and continuous,” are not enough to prove bias or prejudice. Ryan v. Welte (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 888, 893 reaffirms: “[A] wrong opinion on the law of a case does not disqualify a judge, nor is it evidence of bias or prejudice.”

Just imagine - LA judges whom people pay salary are free to be wrong repeatedly, continuously, and without consequence. Judicial immunity shields even deliberate incompetence. The Commission on Judicial Performance (#CJP) rarely acts and also covers up judges while eating people's taxes, and the judiciary shields itself from accountability. My reasonable question is - why do Califonians should put up with such a judicial anarchy and feed ungifted and simply unfit judges and their families for repeated erroneous rulings?

Imagine bringing your child to a doctor with a heart condition, and the doctor treats a broken leg instead - again and again - worsening the condition of your child. Then says: “Sorry, you cannot blame me because my erroneous treatment against your child, even when numerous and continuous - I am immuned.” That’s how California judges treat the public - and how the system protects them.

Why should Californians keep paying judicial salaries for continuing and repeated incompetence and in many cases for lack of basic human virtues? Why should society support people who are terrible at their jobs? Some of judgies, understanding they are immuned, blatantly engage in what, if applied to the average person, would be called forgering of the official record. LA Judges now easily can do it, and some of them indeed does it with impunity because recently, Los Angeles Courts removed mandatory reporters from courtrooms to deprive people of the opportunity to appeal and supporting their position by the recorded record. Nowadays in LA Courts there is no Rule of Law but the judicial anarchy and chaos.

That’s why I’m introducing the FAIR Act – First-instance AI Review Act – to mandate real-time AI oversight of trial court decisions. Not to replace judges, even though I believe someone deserves it, but to restore integrity they abandoned.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL PROPOSAL:

FAIR Act

(First-instance AI Review Act)

Subtitle: AI-Enhanced Judicial Integrity Act

PURPOSE

To enhance the integrity, objectivity, neutrality, and fairness of judicial decisions by mandating real-time artificial intelligence (AI) oversight during legal proceedings. This Act ensures strict adherence to all applicable statutory, procedural, evidentiary, constitutional, and ethical standards. By strengthening the quality and clarity of first-instance court decisions, it seeks to increase access to justice, particularly for self-represented (pro se) litigants, decrease the number of appellate filings, reduce administrative and litigation-related expenses for the State, and restore public trust and confidence in the judicial process.

FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS

1. The integrity of the judicial process is foundational to the rule of law and to public trust and confidence in the legal system, which are essential for societal stability.

2. Despite rigorous education and experience, judges and attorneys remain vulnerable to cognitive biases, emotional influences, and external pressures that can compromise neutrality.

3. When individuals perceive bias or partiality in judicial decisions, particularly at the trial level, they are more likely to seek extrajudicial remedies, contributing to legal cynicism and weakening the legitimacy of the judiciary.

4. Judicial errors and ethical violations frequently arise not from intentional misconduct, but from the inability to effectively neutralize the "human factor" in decision-making.

5. Judges, within time constraints and structural limitations, often cannot fully incorporate all relevant procedural, statutory, constitutional, and legislative intents into their rulings.

6. Increasing access to justice for self-represented (pro se) litigants is critical to judicial fairness. Judges are often unable to reliably assess whether procedural noncompliance by pro se litigants stems from a good faith misunderstanding or from willful neglect, leading to disproportionate and inconsistent treatment. AI oversight can aid in evaluating such distinctions and improving equitable treatment.

7. Real-time AI oversight, functioning independently and impartially, can assist by continuously monitoring for procedural errors, statutory compliance, constitutional consistency, and ethical integrity – ensuring correct application of all relevant legal grounds.

8. AI-generated parallel decisions at the first-instance level offer a measurable standard for judicial objectivity, improve decision-making quality, and promote systemic accountability.

9. This AI-assisted process will significantly reduce appellate burdens by reinforcing the correctness and completeness of trial-level judgments and will consequently decrease administrative and litigation-related expenditures for the State.

10. To ensure long-term judicial accountability, the Act envisions the creation of an independent evaluation mechanism—developed in collaboration with nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and civil society watchdogs—to assess judicial performance. This mechanism will analyze patterns of judicial deviation from AI-generated decisions and the ratio of a judge's rulings that are reversed or modified on appeal. Judges exhibiting consistent, unjustified divergence from legal standards shall be subject to review and possible disqualification, ensuring that judicial service remains a function of merit and public trust.

SECTION 1:

DEFINITIONS

Artificial Intelligence (AI): A computer-based system with the capacity to independently analyze, interpret, and assess legal and ethical standards, perform real-time monitoring, and generate recommendations or independent determinations based on applicable laws and procedural rules.

First-instance Courts: All trial-level courts within the State of California with original jurisdiction over civil, criminal, family, juvenile, or administrative proceedings.

Ethical Compliance: Adherence to applicable judicial and legal ethics rules, including but not limited to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

AI Judicial Oversight System (AIJOS): A certified AI platform approved by the Judicial Council of California for use in courtrooms to ensure legal, procedural, and ethical compliance.

SECTION 2:

MANDATORY AI INTEGRATION AND OVERSIGHT

1. All proceedings in first-instance courts shall be overseen in real-time by an approved AI Judicial Oversight System (AIJOS).

2. The AIJOS shall monitor the entire hearing or trial, including evidentiary procedures, legal arguments, and the conduct of all courtroom actors, including judges and attorneys.

3. The AIJOS shall flag procedural errors, inconsistencies with statutory or constitutional law, and violations of ethical rules.

4. Upon closure of all contesting proceedings, the AIJOS shall issue an independent analytical report including:

   - Procedural compliance assessment

   - Statutory and constitutional conformity

   - Ethical behavior evaluation

   - A parallel, independently rendered decision based on law and facts

5. Judges shall review the AI-generated decision prior to issuing their own final ruling.

6. Any significant deviation from AIJOS analysis shall be explicitly justified in the written ruling.

SECTION 3:

FAIR RECORD ACCESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE

AI-Generated Transcripts to Supplement Court Reporting:

To overcome the ongoing crisis of court reporter shortages and ensure full preservation of the record, the AI Judicial Oversight System (AIJOS) shall transcribe all hearings in real time, generating comprehensive, neutral, and certified transcripts that supplement traditional court reporting services without eliminating or replacing human court reporters.

Guaranteed Access for All Litigants:

All litigants, including self-represented (pro se) parties, shall receive timely and cost-free access to AIJOS-generated certified transcripts, ensuring the preservation of their procedural and substantive rights for appeals, post-conviction relief, and other forms of judicial review.

Official Record Standard:

AIJOS-generated transcripts shall serve as an official record of proceedings unless a party demonstrates, through clear and convincing evidence, that material inaccuracies exist.

Backup and Record Integrity:

All AI-generated transcripts shall be securely backed up, designed to be tamper-resistant, and subject to audit by independent oversight bodies to preserve the authenticity and integrity of the judicial record.

Judicial Accountability Enhancement:

Immediate and accurate transcript availability will play a pivotal role in enhancing judicial responsibility for courtroom conduct, ensuring that judges are held to the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and professionalism in the exercise of their authority.

SECTION 4:

JUDICIAL TRAINING AND PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY

1. All judges and judicial officers shall undergo mandatory training to understand, interpret, and appropriately integrate AIJOS assessments into their rulings.

2. All AIJOS-generated reports and parallel decisions shall be part of the public case file unless sealed for legally justified reasons.

3. An annual report shall be published by the Judicial Council evaluating the impact of AIJOS implementation on procedural fairness, judicial accuracy, and appellate case reduction.

SECTION 5:

CERTIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMPLIANCE

1.   The Judicial Council of California shall oversee the certification of all AI systems used under this Act.

2.   Certification shall be contingent upon:

a.   Demonstrated legal interpretive capacity

b.   Accuracy and neutrality in decision-making

c.    Transparency of decision logic

d.   Compliance with state and federal data protection laws

3.   Developers shall allow independent third-party audits of AI logic and performance.

SECTION 6:

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

1. This Act shall be implemented within twelve (12) months of its enactment.

2. Pilot programs in at least three counties representing diverse populations shall be initiated within six (6) months of enactment.

3. Full compliance across all trial-level courts must be achieved within twenty-four (24) months.

SECTION 7:

SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this Act is found to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end, the provisions of this Act are severable.

SECTION 8:

SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the "FAIR Act."