SEC ALJ.
SEC Administrative Law Judges (SEC). No published AI policy for ALJ proceedings or representative practice as of May 2026.
SEC ALJ AI policy status. #
The SEC's ALJ proceedings have been substantially reduced in scope post-Lucia v. SEC (2018) and post-Jarkesy (2024). Many enforcement actions formerly brought before ALJs are now brought in federal court. The remaining ALJ proceedings (administrative cease-and-desist, professional bars, etc.) still operate, with representative practice governed by SEC Rules of Practice (17 CFR Part 201). As of May 2026, no published AI policy applies to representative AI use in SEC ALJ proceedings. (Substantive SEC AI guidance for registrants — the proposed Predictive Data Analytics rule, withdrawn 2025 — addressed registered investment-adviser use of AI, distinct from practitioner AI use in SEC adjudication.)
Authoritative source: https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-of-enforcement
Last verified: . If this row text disagrees with the linked source, the source controls.
Why SEC ALJ matters. #
SEC ALJ practice is now a relatively small portion of SEC enforcement, but the proceedings that remain are high-stakes (industry bars, registration revocations). AI use by counsel for both Enforcement Division and respondents is increasing.
Practice implications. #
In the absence of SEC-ALJ-specific guidance, representatives should default to ABA Op. 512 and applicable state-bar guidance. Verification duty is universal. The post-Jarkesy redirect of cases to federal court means practitioners should plan AI-compliance frameworks that cover both forums.