Updated judicial guidance on the use of AI

Quick read

What is new?

We reported in December 2023 on the first judicial guidance on the use of AI in the judicial process (see article here). This has now been updated by the judiciary and although much is the same there are a few points worth noting as follows:

The guidance includes an expanded list of common terms with definitions.
It expressly applies to all judicial office holders.
As before it reiterates some of the key limitations of AI tools with more detail.
It highlights the need to uphold confidentiality and privacy, to check the accuracy of the output and to be aware of the potential for bias.
It reminds all judicial office holders that they are personally responsible for material produced in their names.
It warns judicial office holders of use of AI tools by court users including unrepresented litigants. All legal representatives are responsible for the material they put before the court/tribunal and have a professional obligation to ensure it is accurate and appropriate. Although there is no obligation for them to inform the court of their use of AI, the guidance suggests that it may be appropriate to remind individual lawyers of their obligations and confirm that they have independently verified the accuracy of any research or case citations that have been generated with the assistance of AI. In the case of unrepresented litigants, it may be appropriate to ask what checks for accuracy have been undertaken (if any), and inform the litigant that they are responsible for what they put to the court/tribunal.
The guidance also refers to the availability to judicial office holders of a private AI tool Microsoft 'Copilot Chat' accessible through eJudiciary.

So the updated guidance is really a refining of the initial guidance but also a sign that the judiciary are continuing to embrace AI in their work with the availability of their own private AI chatbot. As stated in the initial guidance, AI tools are not recommended for the purposes of legal research or legal analysis so we are still a long way from AI generated judicial legal reasoning.