US dataswitch to UK
Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates
sentencing defendants in criminal cases, presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges and awarding compensation for damages to litigants in civil cases in relation to findings by juries or by the court. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges is work software can't reach.
What shifts is reading documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Arbitrate, advise, adjudicate, or administer justice in a court of law. May sentence defendant in criminal cases according to government statutes or sentencing guidelines. May determine liability of defendant in civil cases. May perform wedding ceremonies. The job title says “judges”, “magistrate judges” or “magistrates”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 12%
- changing shape
- 6%
- staying human
- 82%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 20 out of 100 (15–26 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 21 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
2 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Reading documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues
This is reading one thing and writing another: documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Read documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading pleadings to pull out the facts and issues is exactly the kind of document work software now handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching legal issues and writing opinions on the issues
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal issues in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Research legal issues and write opinions on the issues.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (58–66 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Case law is fully published and searchable, so research and draft opinions are well within reach of software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Writing decisions on cases
The software now makes the first pass at decisions, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Write decisions on cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft a solid opinion from the case record, though the decision itself must issue from the judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
18 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Monitoring proceedings to ensure that all applicable rules and procedures
This work happens in the physical world: proceedings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor proceedings to ensure that all applicable rules and procedures are followed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Keeping a hearing on the rails is something only the presiding judge can do, and it happens live in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Ruling on admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony
This work happens in the physical world: admissibility of evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Rule on admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Evidence rulings are made on the spot by the judge and cannot be handed to anyone else.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges
This work happens in the physical world: hearings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Preside over hearings and listen to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Presiding over a hearing means being in the courtroom, and only a judge may do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising attorneys, juries, litigants and court personnel regarding conduct, issues and proceedings
This work happens in the physical world: attorneys, juries, litigants and court personnel regarding conduct, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Advise attorneys, juries, litigants, and court personnel regarding conduct, issues, and proceedings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Guidance on procedure follows published rules, though it is given live in court by the judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting and enforcing rules of procedure or establishing new rules in situations where there are no procedures already
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for rules of procedure, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interpret and enforce rules of procedure or establish new rules in situations where there are no procedures already established by law.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Filling a gap where no rule exists calls for judgment the law reserves to the judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Issuing arrest warrants
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for arrest warrants, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Issue arrest warrants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Warrant applications are highly standardized, but only a judge or magistrate may sign one.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing juries on applicable laws
This work happens in the physical world: juries, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Instruct juries on applicable laws, direct juries to deduce the facts from the evidence presented, and hear their verdicts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Standard jury instructions are largely templates, but delivering them and taking the verdict is the judge's own act in court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 11 tasks
Providing information regarding the judicial system or other legal issues through the media and public speeches
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: information regarding the judicial system, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Provide information regarding the judicial system or other legal issues through the media and public speeches.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining how courts work is well-documented material software writes easily, though someone has to deliver the talk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Awarding compensation for damages to litigants in civil cases in relation to findings by juries or by the court
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for compensation, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Award compensation for damages to litigants in civil cases in relation to findings by juries or by the court.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out damages follows set rules, but awarding them is an act only a judge can perform.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Imposing restrictions upon parties in civil cases until trials can be held
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for restrictions upon parties, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Impose restrictions upon parties in civil cases until trials can be held.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Interim orders follow familiar patterns, yet imposing them is a judicial act reserved to the judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising other judges, court officers and the court's administrative staff
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles other judges and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise other judges, court officers, and the court's administrative staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a court's staff depends on knowing the people and the building, not on published procedure.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Granting divorces and divide assets between spouses
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: divorces, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Grant divorces and divide assets between spouses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Asset division follows set formulas, but granting a divorce is something only a judge can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Sentencing defendants in criminal cases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: defendants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Sentence defendants in criminal cases, on conviction by jury, according to applicable government statutes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Sentencing guidelines are well documented, but the law says only a judge can hand down a sentence, usually in open court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting preliminary hearings to decide issues
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: preliminary hearings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct preliminary hearings to decide issues, such as whether there is reasonable and probable cause to hold defendants in felony cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A preliminary hearing is held in person and the probable-cause decision is the judge's alone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Settling disputes between opposing attorneys
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: disputes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Settle disputes between opposing attorneys.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting two opposing lawyers to settle depends on authority and pressure applied in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Ruling on custody and access disputes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: custody, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Rule on custody and access disputes, and enforce court orders regarding custody and support of children.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Custody decisions turn on a family's specific circumstances and can only be made by a judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in judicial tribunals to help resolve disputes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: judicial tribunals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Participate in judicial tribunals to help resolve disputes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Sitting on a tribunal means being present as a decision-maker the law recognizes.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing wedding ceremonies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: ceremonies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 2 · SupplementalSource: “Perform wedding ceremonies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: A wedding ceremony is performed in person in front of the couple.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 0/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $153,990a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 24,030in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: legal issues in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: reading documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues and researching legal issues and writing opinions on the issues. What it cannot do is be answerable: hearings need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 12% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 6% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 82% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Reading documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to legal issues, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether admissibility of evidence is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near writing decisions on cases. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was arbitrators, mediators, and conciliators: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 51.0% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 20/100 here, with only 12% of the task list in the top band, and “monitor proceedings to ensure that all applicable rules and procedures are followed” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already rule on admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony, and their equivalent is to rule on exceptions, motions, or admissibility of evidence. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $75,530 against your $153,990, 51.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already rule on admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony, and their equivalent is to rule on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $117,860 against your $153,990, 23.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Lawyers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already settle disputes between opposing attorneys, and their equivalent is to negotiate settlements of civil disputes. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 12% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like presiding over hearings and listening to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Barristers and judges is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Barristers and judges. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for judges / magistrate judges / magistrates, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 12% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for judges / magistrate judges / magistrates. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for judges / magistrate judges / magistrates launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates (United States, SOC 23-1023), 12% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 20 out of 100 (range 15–26, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Read documents on pleadings and motions to ascertain facts and issues” (66/100, high); “Research legal issues and write opinions on the issues” (62/100, high); “Write decisions on cases” (47/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates” stay human?
- About 82% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform wedding ceremonies” (0/100, minimal); “Preside over hearings and listen to allegations made by plaintiffs to determine whether the evidence supports the charges” (3/100, minimal); “Participate in judicial tribunals to help resolve disputes” (6/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 12% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 82% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.