Judge Allison Burroughs has been one of the most vocal federal judges on the need for AI transparency in litigation. Serving in the District of Massachusetts, she's publicly stated that she wants lawyers to disclose when they've used AI—and she's backed that up with an approach that combines encouragement of responsible AI use with firm expectations for accuracy.
Judge Burroughs brings practical experience with AI-related cases to her AI policy views. She's ruled on AI copyright disputes, technology litigation, and cases where AI capabilities are directly at issue. When a judge has hands-on experience adjudicating AI questions, her expectations for AI-assisted filings are informed by real understanding of what the tools can and can't do.
Judge Burroughs's Public Position on AI Disclosure
Judge Burroughs has been publicly outspoken about AI in litigation. At industry conferences and in judicial discussions, she's stated clearly: "We want lawyers to tell us when they've used AI. They can use it, but they have to disclose it." She also requires attorneys to certify that citation checks have been performed to ensure accuracy. This public advocacy matters because it signals not just her personal expectations but her view of where the federal judiciary should be heading. Filing before Judge Burroughs without disclosing AI use would be directly contrary to her expressed position.
AI Copyright and Technology Cases
Judge Burroughs has handled cases that directly involve AI technology and copyright law. In one notable ruling, she addressed whether AI-generated designs were copyrightable, finding that an AI company's choice of colors, shades, and shapes for annotating dental X-rays wasn't sufficiently creative for copyright protection. This kind of hands-on experience with AI capabilities gives Judge Burroughs a more informed view of the technology than judges who've only encountered AI through standing order debates. She understands both what AI can produce and where its outputs fall short of human creativity and judgment.
District of Massachusetts Context
The District of Massachusetts covers Boston and the broader Massachusetts legal market, which includes a concentration of technology companies, life sciences firms, and universities that generate significant patent, copyright, and technology litigation. The district's attorneys are sophisticated and often represent cutting-edge technology companies. Judge Burroughs's courtroom operates in this environment, where AI tools are already embedded in litigation workflows and where the attorneys on both sides likely have deep technical understanding. The expectation isn't that you won't use AI—it's that you'll use it competently and transparently.
Practical Compliance for Judge Burroughs's Courtroom
Step 1: Disclose AI use. Judge Burroughs has been explicit about wanting this information. Step 2: Certify that all citations have been checked for accuracy through traditional legal research tools. Step 3: In technology or IP cases, be prepared for a judge who understands AI capabilities at a substantive level. Don't overstate what AI can do or understate its limitations. Step 4: If your case involves AI copyright or AI-related technology issues, research her prior rulings for insight into her analytical framework. Step 5: Maintain internal records of your AI usage and verification process. If questions arise, you need to demonstrate due diligence.
Judge Burroughs's View on AI and the Judiciary
Judge Burroughs has expressed a balanced view of AI in the legal system. She sees a role for AI in assisting judges with repetitive tasks but believes AI will never replace the human judgment that judges must exercise. She doesn't think AI is suitable for all opinion writing and emphasizes that the technology should support human decision-making, not substitute for it. This philosophy translates to her expectations for attorney filings: AI is welcome as a tool, but the legal judgment, strategic thinking, and accuracy verification must come from a human lawyer. The technology should make good lawyers more efficient, not make mediocre work seem acceptable.
The Bottom Line: Judge Burroughs has publicly demanded AI transparency and disclosure. She combines encouragement of responsible AI use with firm expectations for accuracy and citation verification. If you're filing before her, disclose AI use—she's told you she wants to know.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.