14. Dezember 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 19 von 103 Insights
On 12 December 2023, four senior members of the judiciary issued the first judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts in England and Wales.
This followed a consultation process with various judicial office holders. Judges will be allowed to use ChatGPT to perform some of their tasks provided they follow the guidance on how they are being permitted to use it. This guidance comes after a number of reports where AI is already being used in the judicial system and the cautionary tales of lawyers in other jurisdictions relying on fake cases caused by AI's "hallucinations" and other chatbot disasters. There is nothing in the guidance to suggest that we are any closer to having AI decision-making by the courts. This might be a relief given the lack of confidence some practitioners currently have in the accuracy of the functionality and the risk of error. That said, this marks the first step in the future of how the judiciary intends to work with AI to support its function.
There is nothing particularly surprising in the guidance. It refers to the need to uphold confidentiality and privacy and the risk of inaccuracies and bias in using any AI tool. It recognises the limitations of AI tools, explaining the risks attached to the process of how they generate output. It positively identifies areas where it could be usefully deployed including summarising large bodies of text, writing presentations and carrying out some administration texts including composing emails. It is not recommended for the purposes of legal research or legal analysis so we are clearly a long way from AI generated judicial legal reasoning.
It includes pointers which may alert the court to the fact that material has been produced using AI chatbots and where it may be appropriate to enquire what checks for accuracy have been undertaken. This is particularly in the context of unrepresented litigants who may be relying solely on material generated by AI tools.
As the guidance acknowledges, other AI tools are already successfully used in the court particularly in the context of electronic disclosure. The message its therefore very much an embrace of new technology but with a warning to judges to be vigilant about the risk of false information being produced both through their own use of these AI tools and the use of other court participants. The guidance recognises AI's value stating that "Provided these guidelines are appropriately followed, there is no reason why generative AI could not be a potentially useful secondary tool".
This guidance is described as the first step in a "suite of future work" to support the interactions of the judiciary with AI so we can expect more such guidance in the future as generative AI technology develops. It is a clear demonstration of the continuing adaptability of the judiciary and the courts to an ever increasing use of technology in all its forms – albeit with some caution.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes and Investigations team.
21. Oktober 2025
von mehreren Autoren
11. Juni 2025
von Ryan Ferry, Edwina Kelly
30. Januar 2025
von Katie Chandler
22. Januar 2025
von mehreren Autoren
6. Dezember 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
30. Oktober 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. Oktober 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. Juli 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. Juli 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. März 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. Februar 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. Februar 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. Dezember 2023
13. Dezember 2023
17. Oktober 2023
von Katie Chandler
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. Juli 2023
10. Juli 2023
von Katie Chandler
1. Juni 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. Mai 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
8. März 2023
2. März 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. Februar 2023
13. Februar 2023
8. Februar 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. Januar 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. Oktober 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. Juli 2022
6. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
27. Juli 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. Juli 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. Juni 2022
von Stephanie High
13. Juni 2022
26. Mai 2022
31. Mai 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
von Emma Allen
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. März 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von Matthew Caskie
13. September 2021
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. Juli 2021
15. Juli 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. Mai 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. Mai 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. März 2021
26. Februar 2021
von Tim Strong
24. Februar 2021
20. Januar 2021
von Stephanie High
12. Januar 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. Oktober 2020
23. September 2020
von Stuart Broom
7. Oktober 2020
von Nick Storrs
12. Mai 2020
18. Mai 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. März 2020
von James Bryden
17. März 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. Februar 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. Februar 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. Juli 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. Juli 2020
21. Juli 2020
3. Dezember 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. Oktober 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. Januar 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. Januar 2022
von Natalia Faekova
8. März 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. März 2022
von Stuart Broom
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
von Katie Chandler und Esha Marwaha