Even as AI translation has gained traction commercially, certain highly regulated fields and verticals have been considered “off-limits,” or at least unlikely to become early use cases due to the significant risks associated with misuse or errors.
Contrary to some assumptions, however, the Ohio Supreme Court is currently considering whether, and how, AI translation might be incorporated in the legal realm in the near future.
Court News Ohio, a service of the Office of Public Information of the Supreme Court of Ohio, reported on May 6, 2025, that the public may now comment on proposed amendments to rules related to interpreter services in Ohio courts.
In particular, one amendment explores “the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to assist with translation and interpretation in legal settings.”
According to Rule 87, “The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Interpretation and Translation,” AI is not to be used for interpreting for any “substantive legal proceeding, case, or court function.” This applies to both oral interpretation and “translated close[d] captioning.”
2024 Slator Pro Guide: Translation AI
The 2024 Slator Pro Guide presents 20 new and impactful ways that LLMs can be used to enhance translation workflows.
Nor should the court use AI for the translation of any “substantive legal writings,” including “legal forms, court orders, probation conditions, and any other similar writings that may impact the outcome of a case or a litigant’s constitutional or civil rights.”
With so many caveats, what materials can receive the AI translation treatment? Non-substantive, non-legal writings — though even in those cases, the use of AI and the risk of related errors must also be disclosed.
These materials may include “general court information,” such as websites, webpages, chatbots, court signage, court hours, department or office locations, and other writings that are not legal in nature.
When possible, the text of the proposed rule adds, the court may review translated pages or items for accuracy and completeness, engaging either a qualified human translator or a “proficient native speaker of the language.”
The proposed amendment comes as Ohio sees an increase in demand for court interpreters, with a roster of qualified interpreters for about 100 languages not fully meeting the need.
Alongside GenAI, Ohio is considering making language certification for interpreters permanent (versus the current three-year term); allowing semi-certified interpreters to work on “minor” cases; and accepting out-of-state certification for interpreters.
Rule 87 “may be subject to change as technology advances,” according to Supreme Court documentation. Public comments on the proposed amendment will be accepted until June 2, 2025.