Home » Publications » Artificial Intelligence in Victoria’s Courts and Tribunals: Report » Appendix C: International guidelines for court users, judicial officers and court staff

Appendix C: International guidelines for court users, judicial officers and court staff

Court user guidelines

Table 25: Interjurisdictional court user guidelines on AI

Jurisdiction

Court user guidelines

Canada

In May 2024, the Federal Court of Canada issued a Notice to the parties and the profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings.[1] This requires court users to disclose AI-generated content. The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba and Supreme Court of Yukon have similar requirements to declare AI use.[2]

Other courts in Canada have released guidelines that do not mandate pre-emptive disclosure. This includes Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec.[3] These courts do not require disclosure but strongly encourage court users to exercise caution when referring to legal authorities or analysis derived from AI.

The Canadian Bar Association developed an AI toolkit that includes guidelines relating to the use of AI for barristers.[4] It raises risks associated with AI and how barristers should manage those risks in line with their professional obligations. Several law societies in Canada have also released guidelines on how lawyers should use AI in line with their professional obligations.[5]

Caribbean

The Caribbean Court of Justice released a practice direction on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Court Proceedings. It does not require court users to disclose their use of AI in every case. But it highlights that court users should disclose if asked by the court and explain what steps they took to confirm the accuracy of AI-generated outputs.[6]

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary released the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, which was updated in April 2025.[7] This guidance aims to assist the judiciary, their clerks, and support staff on the use of AI. The guideline also makes remarks about the use of AI by court users. It states that: ‘Provided AI is used responsibly, there is no reason why a legal representative ought to refer to its use, but this is dependent upon context’.[8]

The Law Society of England and Wales has a guide on the use of GenAI. This includes a checklist for lawyers to consider before using AI, and considerations for risk management.[9]

European Union

The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe and the European Lawyers Foundation jointly published the Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools by Lawyers and Law Firms in the EU in 2022.[10] It sets out opportunities and risks that AI tools may hold for lawyers. It explains key terms and outlines opportunities for lawyers to use AI in their legal practice. It also illustrates risks AI use poses to lawyers’ professional obligations.

Ireland

Ireland’s Law Society Library has a starter guide on Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice.[11] This outlines the basic concepts of AI and AI policy and regulation issues.

Malaysia

The Malaysian Bar Council released an informative document to members, The Risks and Precautions in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession, Specifically ChatGPT.[12] It outlines benefits and risks of use of GenAI tools and directs lawyers to verify outputs of GenAI systems.

New Zealand

The Courts of New Zealand issued Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in courts and tribunals for lawyers,[13] and separate guidelines for non-lawyers.[14] Under these guidelines, disclosure is not required unless asked by the court or tribunal.

The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa issued guidance on Lawyers and Generative AI.[15] It provides information about GenAI and how to manage risks and contains a checklist of things lawyers should think about before using or procuring AI.

Scotland

The Law Society of Scotland published a Guide to Generative AI.[16] The guide explains key AI concepts and highlights concerns to be wary of when using GenAI. It discusses when lawyers may wish to consider informing their clients that they are using GenAI.[17] It also links lawyers existing professional obligations to the use of AI.[18]

Singapore

The Supreme Court of Singapore released a Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users.[19] This applies to all state courts in Singapore and is directed to court users. It does not prohibit the use of GenAI. It requires court users to check the outputs of GenAI for accuracy and relevance.[20] Court users are not required to disclose where GenAI is used. However, the court can ask about use and court users may be asked to declare they have complied with the guideline.[21] The guideline also lists remedies if a court user fails to comply with the guidelines, including ordering costs against the person.

United States

Some district courts in California,[22] Texas,[23] and Pennsylvania,[24] have issued standing orders requiring court users to sign and submit a form pre-emptively disclosing if they used any form of AI for legal research or drafting in connection with a case and certifying the accuracy of filed documents.

The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence states that AI use by court users should not be discouraged, and that disclosure of AI use should not be required.[25] Similarly, cases before a particular Magistrate in the Northern District Court of Illinois do not require disclosure.[26]

The Supreme Court of Missouri published an informal opinion which sets out key ethical considerations for lawyers if they choose to use GenAI.[27]

The American Bar Association has released information for lawyers on GenAI use. It highlights the connection between GenAI use and legal ethical obligations and duties.[28] The New York Bar Association released guidelines for lawyers, following publication of a special taskforce report in April 2024.[29] These include the benefits and risks of AI and impacts on professional obligations. The report states the Bar Association should establish a standing committee to oversee AI updates, and makes broader recommendations about education and gaps in existing legislation.[30] Other legal professional bodies have also released guidance to lawyers, including bar associations in California, Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.[31] The National State Centre for State Courts also released an Artificial Intelligence Guidance for Use of AI and Generative AI in Courts.[32]

Judicial officer and court/tribunal staff guidelines

Table 26: Interjurisdictional judicial officer and court/tribunal staff guidelines on AI

Jurisdiction

Judicial officer and court/tribunal staff guidelines

Brazil

The Brazilian National Council of Justice approved a set of rules for the use of AI in the judiciary.[33] The rules set out that judges can use AI systems to support their functions but the final decision will remain their responsibility.

Canada

The Canadian Judicial Council issued Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts.[34] The guidelines are directed to the judiciary to support their understanding of how they can use AI. Importantly, the guidelines direct that a judges’ decision-making authority should never be delegated to AI.[35]

The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada released guidance about the use of AI in court operations by courts.[36] It also released guidance to support courts in responding to the use of AI by court users and to help courts monitor AI risks and use effectively.[37]

The Federal Court of Canada has in place Interim Principles and Guidelines on the Court’s Use of Artificial Intelligence.[38] This includes principles and guidelines for the use of AI by members of the Court.

Colombia

Colombia’s Superior Council of the Judiciary partnered with UNESCO to create Guidelines for the Responsible and Safe Use of Generative AI in the Judicial Branch. Colombia’s guidelines require that court staff and judicial officers clearly disclose if, how and which AI tools were used in judicial decisions.[39] These guidelines are based on the draft guidelines that UNESCO is developing for courts and tribunals (discussed below).[40]

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary released the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, which was updated in April 2025.[41] It aims to assist the judiciary, their clerks, and support staff when using AI. Judges are not obliged to describe the research or preparatory work which may have been done to produce a judgment. It is stated that: ‘Provided these guidelines are appropriately followed, there is no reason why generative AI could not be a potentially useful secondary tool.’[42] It also contains examples of tasks where AI is potentially useful and tasks where the use of AI is not recommended.[43]

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice developed the European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment, which adopts five key principles on the use of AI. It provides information on the use of AI in the judicial systems of Council of Europe states. Appendix II provides examples of uses of AI in judicial systems ranging from uses to be encouraged through to uses to be considered with extreme reservations.[44]

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Judiciary released Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Judges and Judicial Officers and Support Staff of the Hong Kong Judiciary.[45] The guidelines set general rules and guiding principles for judges, judicial officers and support staff when using GenAI for judicial or administrative duties. One principle is that judicial officers should continue to make all judicial decisions independently and personally, and should allow GenAI to perform their judicial functions.[46] The guidelines also raise limitations of AI and provide examples of how AI may be used by judges and court staff.

India

The High Court of Kerala released guidelines for the judiciary on AI use which prohibit the use of AI for decision making or legal reasoning. It directs courts to maintain an audit of all instances where AI tools are used and the human verification process that was adopted.[47]

New Zealand

The Courts of New Zealand issued Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in courts and tribunals for judges, judicial officers, tribunal members and judicial support staff.[48] Judicial officers do not need to disclose their use of GenAI but court staff are encouraged to discuss with their supervising judicial officer if they are using GenAI tools and take steps to mitigate risks.[49] It also includes a list of potential uses of AI and examples of uses that require extra care, such as legal research and analysis.[50]

Scotland

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service policy on the development and use of AI[51] contains seven guiding principles to ensure the use of AI is ethical and beneficial. It provides for governance and oversight through a hierarchy of control across different governance bodies. It also makes commitments to training, development, monitoring and review. It specifies that contracts with suppliers will include clauses that specify ethical AI use and compliance with relevant laws and standards, including data protection and privacy.

Spain

The Ministry of Justice and Court Relations released a Policy on the use of AI in the Administration of Justice.[52] It incorporates the European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment’s five ethical principles.[53] It contains rules for the use of AI in the administration of justice. It also creates obligations to set responsibility for AI use, development, implementation, quality control and auditing. It contains examples of AI uses that are permitted through to uses that are prohibited.

The Vatican

The Vatican released Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence.[54] The guidelines distinguish between permissible and impermissible uses of AI in the judiciary.[55]

UNESCO

UNESCO released draft Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals.[56] The draft guidelines were open to public consultation in 2024.[57] It offers comprehensive guidance to courts and tribunals when deploying AI technologies, to ensure alignment with the fundamental principles of justice, human rights and the rule of law.[58] The draft guideline contains 13 principles that members of the judiciary should consider when adopting or using AI.[59] It encourages judicial organisations to consult with stakeholders before adopting AI systems.[60] The guidelines also state the judiciary should proactively disclose key information about their use of AI systems.[61]

United States

In Arizona, the Supreme Court has a Code of Judicial Administration which contains a section for court personnel and provides direction on the use of GenAI and large language models.[62] It sets out permitted uses of AI systems and prohibits court staff from inputting non-public content into non-approved AI systems.[63] It also states a list of approved tools, and the type of permitted use will be maintained and regularly updated.[64]

In California, the Judicial Council of California agreed to adopt California Rules of Court, rule 10.430 and California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.80, to address the use of GenAI for court-related work.[65] Under rule 10.430, any court that does not prohibit the use of GenAI by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a policy that applies to the use of GenAI by court staff for any purpose, and by judicial officers for any task outside their adjudicative role. Details are provided on what policies should contain, for instance prohibiting the entry of confidential or non-public information into public GenAI tools and setting out specific disclosure requirements. Standard 10.80 covers the use of GenAI by judicial officers for tasks within their adjudicative role, and its provisions are similar to those in rule 10.430.

In Connecticut, the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch released an Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Framework.[66] It contains information about AI, guiding principles and procedures for the different phases, including intake and exploration, impact assessment, procurement and implementation.[67]

In Delaware, the Delaware Courts have an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel.[68] It applies to judicial officer’s court employees and volunteers. It contains a direction that judicial officers and court staff ‘may not delegate their decision-making function.’[69] There is also a prohibition of inputting non-public information into non-approved GenAI systems.

In Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court released the Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence[70] and Judicial Reference Sheet.[71] This contains information for judges on GenAI, considerations for use and risks to be aware of. It also emphasises that ‘judges remain ultimately responsible for their decisions, irrespective of technological advancements.’[72]

United States

In Maryland, the Judiciary released Guidelines for the Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Platforms.[73] The guidelines apply to judiciary employees. They contain directions such as not to input confidential, sensitive or personal information into public tools, and to only use approved GenAI tools.[74] It also directs employees to seek approval from their supervisor before using GenAI tools.[75]

In Nevada, the Supreme Court created an Artificial Intelligence Guide for Courts and Judicial Officers.[76] It explains how AI may impact judicial officers and contains directions on how to use AI. It also contains a list of things judicial officers should watch out for such as hallucinations and deepfakes.

In Ohio, the district court of Toledo has an AI Policy.[77] It applies to all court employees. It states employees remain ultimately responsible for work and directs staff not to input non-public case information into AI tools.[78]

In Utah, the Judicial Council has in place Interim Rules on the Use of Generative AI.[79] It states that judicial officers and court employees remain responsible for the content generated by AI and can only use approved AI tools for approved purposes.[80]

In South Carolina, the Supreme Court released a policy applying to all judicial officers and employees of the South Carolina Judicial Branch.[81] It sets out that only approved GenAI tools can be used. It also states judicial officers and staff ‘may not use Generative AI to draft memoranda, orders, opinions, or other human documents without direct human oversight and approval’.[82]

In South Dakota, the Supreme Court released Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidance.[83] It contains practical directions for staff on how to use GenAI for work purposes and provides examples.

The New York City Bar Association’s Working Group on Judicial Administration and Artificial Intelligence investigated the potential impact of AI on the New York state judiciary and produced the Artificial Intelligence and The New York State Judiciary: A Preliminary Path.[84] It raises issues for judges to be aware of, including the use of AI by lawyers, self-represented litigants and in evidence. It also makes a recommendation for the judiciary to consider disclosing their use of AI in decision making.[85]

United States

The Federal Justice Centre’s Introduction to AI for Federal Judges[86] provides a technical background on core concepts of AI and highlights potential legal issues. It aims to assist judges to ask questions and determine whether to admit AI applications into evidence or use AI in their judicial functions.

South Korea

The Court Artificial Intelligence Research Society announced the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary in February 2025.[87] It contains key principles judges should consider when using AI. It emphasises that judges should not rely ‘exclusively on AI to find facts and interpret and apply the law. In particular, judges must provide appropriate and sufficient information regarding their AI use in matters that significantly affects the defendants’ rights to defense and counsel in criminal proceedings.’[88]

  1. ​Federal Court of Canada, Notice to Parties and the Profession – The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings (Notice, 7 May 2024).

    ↑

  2. ​Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba, Practice Direction: Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions (Practice Direction, 23 June 2023); Supreme Court of Yukon, Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools (Practice Direction General No 29, 26 June 2023).

    ↑

  3. ​Court of Appeal of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta and Alberta Court of Justice, Notice to the Profession & Public – Ensuring the Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models (Notice, 6 October 2023) <https://albertacourts.ca/kb/resources/announcements/notice-to-the-profession-public—use-of-ai-in-citations-submissions>; Court of Quebec, Notice to the Legal Community and the Public – Maintaining the Integrity of Submissions before the Court When Using Large Language Models (Notice, 26 January 2024) <https://courduquebec.ca/en/article/notice-to-the-legal-community-and-the-public-maintaining-the-integrity-of-submissions-before-the-court-when-using-large-language-models>; Nova Scotia Courts, Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Proceedings before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Report, 14 March 2025) <https://www.courts.ns.ca/resources/notices/use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-proceedings-nova-scotia-court-of-appeal>; Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Notice to the Profession and the General Public Ensuring the Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models (Notice, 12 October 2023).

    ↑

  4. ​Canadian Bar Association, Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Legal Practitioner – Toolkit (Guide, 2025) ‘3. Guidelines Relating to Use’ <https://cba.org/resources/practice-tools/ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-for-the-legal-practitioner/3-guidelines-relating-to-use/>.

    ↑

  5. ​Law Society of British Columbia, Guidance on Professional Responsibility and Generative AI (Practice Resource, October 2023); Law Society of Ontario, Generative AI: Your Professional Obligations (Practice Note, 11 April 2024); Law Society of Saskatchewan, Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (Guidelines, February 2024) <https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/Law-Society-of-Saskatchewan-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-Guidelines.pdf>; The Law Society of Alberta, The Generative AI Playbook (Guide, January 2024) <https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-centre/key-resources/professional-conduct/the-generative-ai-playbook/>; The Law Society of Manitoba, Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Use in the Practice of Law (Guidelines, April 2024) <https://educationcentre.lawsociety.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-Guidelines-for-Use-in-the-Practice-of-Law.pdf>.

    ↑

  6. ​Caribbean Court of Justice, Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Court Proceedings (Practice Direction, 14 February 2025) 3 <https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/PRACTICE-DIRECTION-NO.-1-OF-2025-THE-USE-OF-GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-TOOLS.pdf>.

    ↑

  7. ​Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (UK), Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders (Guidance, 14 April 2025) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Refreshed-AI-Guidance-published-version.pdf>.

    ↑

  8. ​Ibid 7.

    ↑

  9. ​The Law Society of England and Wales, Generative AI – the Essentials: Checklist (Guide, The Law Society of England and Wales, 17 November 2023) <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk//en/Topics/AI-and-lawtech/Guides/Generative-AI-the-essentials>.

    ↑

  10. ​Peter Homoki, Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools by Lawyers and Law Firms in the EU (Report, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) and European Lawyers Foundation (ELF), 2022) <https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Reports_studies/EN_ITL_20220331_Guide-AI4L.pdf>.

    ↑

  11. ​Law Society of Ireland Library, Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Legal Practice (Guidance, February 2024) <https://lawsociety.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=35197930>.

    ↑

  12. ​Bar Council Malaysia, The Risks and Precautions in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession, Specifically ChatGPT (Circular No 342/2023, 24 November 2023) <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/document/members/circulars/2020—2024/2023&rid=46578>.

    ↑

  13. ​Courts of New Zealand, Guidelines for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Tribunals: Lawyers (Guidelines, 7 December 2023).

    ↑

  14. ​Courts of New Zealand, Guidelines for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Tribunals: Non-Lawyers (Guidelines, 7 December 2023).

    ↑

  15. ​Law Society of New Zealand, Lawyers and Generative AI (Guidance, March 2024) <https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Professional-practice-docs/Rules-and-Guidelines/Lawyers-and-AI-Guidance-Mar-2024.pdf>.

    ↑

  16. ​Law Society of Scotland, Guide to Generative AI (Guide, October 2024) <https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/business-support/lawscottech/resources/guide-to-generative-ai/>.

    ↑

  17. ​Ibid 12.

    ↑

  18. ​Ibid 16–18.

    ↑

  19. ​Supreme Court of Singapore, Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users (Registrar’s Circular No 1 of 2024, 1 October 2024) <https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf>.

    ↑

  20. ​Ibid [5.3].

    ↑

  21. ​Ibid [8].

    ↑

  22. ​Orange County Superior Court, Orange County Superior Court Department C31: Pre-Trial Order and Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (Guidance, 25 January 2024) <https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf>.

    ↑

  23. ​394th Judicial District Court (Texas), Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Standing Order, 1 August 2024) <https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/2f8cb9d7-adb6-4232-a36b-27b72fdfcd38/downloads/Standing%20order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Int.pdf?ver=1720638374301>; County Courts at Law Judges in and for Collin County, Texas, Standing Order No. 3: Use of Artificial Intelligence for Any Court Filing (Standing Order, 3 July 2024) <https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030>; District Courts & County Courts at Law, Wichita County, Texas, Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Standing Order, 26 March 2024) <https://wichitacountytx.com/download/standing-order-regarding-use-of-artificial-intelligence/>; Gray County Court, Texas, Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Standing Order, 17 July 2024) <https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014>; Hudspeth County Court, Texas, Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Standing Order, 12 July 2024) <https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997>.

    ↑

  24. ​United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson (Standing Order, 6 June 2023) <https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/locrules/standord/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf>.

    ↑

  25. ​Supreme Court of Illinois, Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (Policy, 1 January 2025) 2.

    ↑

  26. ​United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge Fuentes (Standing Order, 31 May 2023) <https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20Order%20For%20Civil%20Cases%20Before%20Judge%20Fuentes%20rev%27d%205-31-23%20(002).pdf>.

    ↑

  27. ​Office of Legal Ethics Counsel & Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri, Informal Opinion Number: 2024-11 (Report, 25 April 2024) <https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/>.

    ↑

  28. ​American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (Report, 29 July 2024) <https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf>.

    ↑

  29. ​New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (Report, April 2024).

    ↑

  30. ​Ibid.

    ↑

  31. ​Florida Bar, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion: Opinion 24-1 (Guidance, 19 January 2024) <https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/>; Kentucky Bar Association, Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 (Guidance, 15 March 2024) <https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/0f5iqlvcgyaumn7wvl10sku8mon3q41f>; Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee, Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200: Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Guidance, 2024) <https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joint-Formal-Opinion-2024-200.pdf>; The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (Guidance, 16 November 2023) <https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf>.

    ↑

  32. ​AI Rapid Response Team, Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for Use of AI and Generative AI in Courts (Guidance, National Centre for State Courts, 7 August 2024) <https://www.ncsc.org/sites/default/files/media/document/AI-Courts-NCSC-AI-guidelines-for-courts.pdf>.

    ↑

  33. ​‘Brazilian National Council of Justice Approves New Regulation for the Use of Artificial Intelligence by the Judiciary’, Instituto Dannemann Siemsen (Web Page, 6 March 2025) <https://ids.org.br/en/news-post/brazilian-national-council-of-justice-approves-new-regulation-for-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-the-judiciary/>.

    ↑

  34. ​Canadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (Guidelines, September 2024) <https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf>.

    ↑

  35. ​Ibid 3–4.

    ↑

  36. ​Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, Action Committee on Modernizing Court Operations, Use of Artificial Intelligence by Courts to Enhance Court Operations (Statement, 20 November 2024) <https://fja-cmf.gc.ca/COVID-19/pdf/Use-of-AI-by-Courts-Utilisation-de-lIA-par-les-tribunaux-eng.pdf>.

    ↑

  37. ​Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, Action Committee on Modernizing Court Operations, Use of AI by Court Users to Help Them Participate in Court Proceedings (Statement, 20 November 2024) <https://fja-cmf.gc.ca/COVID-19/Use-of-AI-by-Court-Users-Utilisation-de-lIA-par-les-usagers-des-tribunaux-eng.html>.

    ↑

  38. ​‘Interim Principles and Guidelines on the Court’s Use of Artificial Intelligence’, Federal Court of Canada (Guidelines, 20 December 2023) <https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligence>.

    ↑

  39. ​‘Justice Meets Innovation: Colombia’s Groundbreaking AI Guidelines for Courts’, UNESCO (Web Page, 1 April 2025) <https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/justice-meets-innovation-colombias-groundbreaking-ai-guidelines-courts>.

    ↑

  40. ​United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Draft Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals (Guidelines, May 2025) <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000393682>.

    ↑

  41. ​Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (UK), Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders (Guidance, 14 April 2025) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Refreshed-AI-Guidance-published-version.pdf>.

    ↑

  42. ​Ibid 7.

    ↑

  43. ​Ibid 8.

    ↑

  44. ​European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment (2019, adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, Strasbourg, 3-4 December 2018).

    ↑

  45. ​Hong Kong Judiciary Administration, Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Judges and Judicial Officers and Support Staff of the Hong Kong Judiciary (Guidelines, July 2024).

    ↑

  46. ​Ibid [6].

    ↑

  47. ​‘AI Tools Not for Decision Making: Kerala HC Guidelines to District Judiciary on AI Usage’, The Economic Times (online, 20 July 2025) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/ai-tools-not-for-decision-making-kerala-hc-guidelines-to-district-judiciary-on-ai-usage/articleshow/122794562.cms?from=mdr>.

    ↑

  48. ​Courts of New Zealand, Guidelines for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Tribunals: Judges, Judicial Officers, Tribunal Members and Judicial Support Staff (Guidelines, 7 December 2023) <https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf>.

    ↑

  49. ​Ibid 3.

    ↑

  50. ​Ibid 5–6.

    ↑

  51. ​Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service: Our Approach to the Development of Services Using Artificial Intelligence (Policy, April 2025) <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/xalno3ff/scts-ai-policy.pdf>.

    ↑

  52. ​Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts (Spain), Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Administration of Justice (Policy, 2024) <https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia/Documents/Spains_Policy_on_the_use_of_AI_in_the_Justice_Administration.pdf>.

    ↑

  53. ​European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment (2019, adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, Strasbourg, 3-4 December 2018).

    ↑

  54. ​The Pontifical Commission for the State of the Vatican City, Decreto Della Pontificia Commissione per Lo Stato Della Città Del Vaticano Recante “Linee Guida in Materia Di Intelligenza Artificiale” [Decree of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State Containing ‘Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence’ (English Translation)] (Decree No N. DCCII, 16 December 2024) <https://www.vaticanstate.va/images/N.%20DCCII.pdf>.

    ↑

  55. ​Centre for AI and Digital Policy, CAIDP’s Comments on Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Systems For the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Report, 2 May 2025) 5.

    ↑

  56. ​United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Draft Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals (Guidelines, May 2025) <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000393682>.

    ↑

  57. ​Ibid.

    ↑

  58. ​Ibid 1.

    ↑

  59. ​Ibid 9.

    ↑

  60. ​Ibid 12.

    ↑

  61. ​Ibid 13–4.

    ↑

  62. ​Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Branch, Arizona Code of Judicial Administration (Code of Practice, 29 January 2025) ’Section 1-509: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology and Large Language Models’ <https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf?ver=acMF-P2SER0dArzTQohBjQ%3d%3d>.

    ↑

  63. ​Ibid 3.

    ↑

  64. ​Ibid 4.

    ↑

  65. ​Judicial Council of California, Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Judicial Branch Administration: Rule and Standard for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court-Related Work (Report to the Judicial Council No 25–109, 16 June 2025) <https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14303119&GUID=0C94642A-28D3-47C0-8AE9-1E4DE3A96DFC>.

    ↑

  66. ​State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Framework (JBAPPM Policy 1013, 1 February 2024).

    ↑

  67. ​Ibid 6–7.

    ↑

  68. ​Delaware Courts, Judicial Branch, Interim Policy on the Use of GenAI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel (Interim Policy, 22 October 2024) <https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838>.

    ↑

  69. ​Ibid 1.

    ↑

  70. ​Supreme Court of Illinois, Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (Policy, 1 January 2025).

    ↑

  71. ​Supreme Court of Illinois, Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence: Judicial Reference Sheet (Reference Sheet, 1 January 2025) <https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/cb3d6da3-66c7-469d-97f3-41568bdeee8c/ISC%20AI%20Policy%20Bench%20Card.pdf>.

    ↑

  72. ​Ibid 1.

    ↑

  73. ​Maryland Judiciary, Guidelines for the Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Platforms (Guidelines, 15 April 2024).

    ↑

  74. ​Ibid 1.

    ↑

  75. ​Ibid.

    ↑

  76. ​Nevada Courts, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Judicial Officers (Guide, February 2025) <https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/46693/AI_Guide_for_Judicial_Officers.pdf>.

    ↑

  77. ​Toledo Municipal Court, Toledo Municipal Court AI Policy (Policy, 18 December 2024).

    ↑

  78. ​Ibid 1.

    ↑

  79. ​Judicial Council, Utah, Interim Rules on the Use of Generative AI (Interim Rules, 25 October 2023) <https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/px0vzpzzg6n42ng10i4lya4al0mwjhqq>.

    ↑

  80. ​Ibid.

    ↑

  81. ​The Supreme Court of South Carolina, Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Policy, 25 March 2025) <https://www.sccourts.org/media/courtOrders/PDFs/2025-03-25-01.pdf>.

    ↑

  82. ​Ibid 2.

    ↑

  83. ​Supreme Court of South Dakota, South Dakota Unified Judicial System Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidance (Guidance, June 2024).

    ↑

  84. ​Working Group on Judicial Administration and Artificial Intelligence (JAAI), New York City Bar, Artificial Intelligence and the New York State Judiciary: A Preliminary Path (Report, 3 June 2024) <https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/s/dwtpkyv4vadgvwryz872382xg1gj9svh>.

    ↑

  85. ​Ibid 7.

    ↑

  86. ​James E Baker, Laurie N Hobart and Matthew Mittelsteadt, An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence for Federal Judges (Report, Federal Judicial Centre, 2023).

    ↑

  87. ​Bae Kim & Lee LLC et al, ‘Announcement of Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary’, Lexology (Web Page, 19 March 2025) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3de965db-8c9c-4938-af8c-5e4bc09c02dc>.

    ↑

  88. ​Ibid.

    ↑

Voiced by Amazon Polly

Appendix B: Consultations

Hicaliber © 2026. All rights reserved.