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-SEC v. Jarkesy (2024). Many enforcement actions formerly brought before ALJs are now brought in federal district court. The remaining ALJ proceedings (administrative cease-and-desist, professional bars, accountant suspensions under Rule 102(e), registration revocations) 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. The SEC's substantive AI guidance for registrants — the proposed Predictive Data Analytics rule (withdrawn 2025) — addressed registered investment-adviser use of AI in client recommendations, which is operationally distinct from practitioner conduct.
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 smaller portion of SEC enforcement than pre-Jarkesy, but the matters that remain are existentially high-stakes for respondents — industry bars, accountant suspensions, and registration revocations are career-ending. The body of SEC enforcement precedent presents a particular AI-verification challenge because it spans three different document types: Commission opinions (precedential), ALJ initial decisions (precedential within ALJ practice but reviewable de novo), and federal-court SEC v. X opinions (judicial precedent). AI tools frequently conflate these document types, attributing ALJ initial-decision rationale to Commission opinions or treating district-court SEC settlements as if they were litigated rulings.
Practice implications. #
SEC ALJ representatives should: (1) follow ABA Op. 512 + applicable state-bar guidance; (2) verify AI-generated SEC enforcement precedent with particular care — the three-tier structure of Commission / ALJ / federal-court precedent is a known AI-confusion pattern; (3) maintain dual-forum AI compliance frameworks because the post-Jarkesy redirection of matters to federal district court means many SEC enforcement matters now sit before federal judges with their own AI standing orders; (4) Rule 102(e) accountant-suspension proceedings have a body of internally consistent precedent that AI handles relatively well, but securities-fraud ALJ initial decisions citing Howey / Reves / Heckler chains need verification. The SEC Office of Administrative Law Judges has not signaled imminent AI guidance.