Published: 11:42 PM, 15 September 2026
The Burning Need for AI Policies for Legal Professionals
Raisul Sourav
AI is being used all over the world in healthcare, medicine, business, engineering, education, law enforcement, military and even in various governmental administrative decision-making processes. The judiciary is no longer lagging behind in this regard. Judges, court staff, lawyers, and self-represented litigants are also applying AI tools for numerous needs and using it in legal proceedings. AI tools have potentials to modernize the judicial proceedings and automating administrative tasks.
Some judges have already created discussion by applying popular AI chatbot like ChatGPT in judicial decision-making processes. Lawyers also often present references, arguments, or precedents prepared through AI in court that do not actually exist. Consequently, the regulatory bodies of lawyers and the judicial bodies in different countries have drawn boundaries to regulate the unwanted and unethical use of AI in the judicial proceedings. Because the unplanned, improper and unbridled application of AI systems in pleadings, arguments, evidence analysis or in the judgments can bring severe consequences. As a result, a crisis of trust among citizens about the justice system can be appeared and questions relating to the independence, transparency, accountability, legitimacy etc., regarding the judiciary may be arisen.
However, it is perhaps not possible to completely avoid the use of AI in the legal profession during the widespread rise of it. Rather, its specific, planned, ethical and moderate use can be advantageous for both the legal professionals and litigants to reduce their effort, time and cost in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, if a judge or lawyer applies such technology without knowing the limitations, or without having adequate training, the outcomes can be dangerous and potential to create misperception, amplify cost, effort and delay.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India (SCOI) noticed that cases had been determined by referring to non-existent and fictional precedents derived from AI. A junior civil judge from Vijayawada city of Andhra Pradesh took aid from AI chatbot to adjudicate a property related suit. Again, in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. same incident was identified by SCOI.
Therefore, the court has warned about the legal consequences of such unintended use of AI in judicial decisions. The apex court held that the judgment has now become a cause of considerable institutional concern in India not because of the decision taken on the merits of the case, but because of the unethical use of AI in the trial and adjudication process. The highest court in India further opined that the judgment given based on a fictitious judgment will not only be seen as a judicial error but will also be considered as judicial misconduct.
To prevent the unwanted use of AI in judicial decisions, the SCOI has already formulated a draft guideline for judges. There is also a committee in the Supreme Court working on how AI can be used in the judicial systems in India. The SCOI has planned to start using AI technology in case listing, scheduling of hearings and bench allocations. There is a lack of transparency in case listing in our country too and irregularities are being seen in some places. A survey conducted by the Northwestern University and released on 30 March, revealed that more than 60 percent judges are using popular AI tools at least once in their judicial work. Among them, around 22 percent confirmed they used AI daily or weekly in their duties although they didn’t receive any training regarding the prospects and challenges of such AI systems from court administration.
A Federal Court in West Virginia has recently issued an order to consider the use of AI by the defence to review sensitive discovery (e.g., witness info, medical records, footage involving minors). It mandates defence counsel to obtain the government’s written approval before inputting such materials into any AI tool. The council must ensure that no information will be stored for training purposes, or be shared with third parties, or be retained after a case is over. That reminds about the increasing judicial awareness of the potential of AI to affect confidentiality and the integrity of discovery.
Although the initiative to formulate a national AI policy is underway; but it is urgent to adopt a separate policy specifically related to the use of AI for the judiciary. Hence, before the burden of judging is transferred to AI, or before a major disaster occurs in judicial sector, it is urgent for policymakers to actively think about practice directions or policies on the use of AI in courts now. At the same time, extensive research, discussion, allocation of budget and useful practical actions are obvious on how modern technology like AI can be used to prevent corruption, enhance the quality of services, reduce the suffering of litigants, ensure transparency and accountability, reduce the cost, complexity and delay of cases etc., while maintaining the basic principles of justice. We should always bear in mind that courts are not only the forum to resolve disputes; rather they uphold human rights, represent the rule of law and make democratic institutions accountable.
Raisul Sourav is a Doctoral
Researcher on the Application
of AI in Judicial Decision-Making
at the School of Law, University of Galway, Ireland.
