Irish judges have been told that while AI tools such as ChatGPT can be used to summarize information, write speeches and carry out administrative tasks, they should not be used for legal research or analysis.
irish legal news The first formal guidelines for Irish judges on the ‘Responsible Use of Generative AI’ have been published. The guidelines were developed by the Justice Commission last summer and closely mirror those in England and Wales.
The document, published today, includes a basic explanation of how generative AI works and also highlights ways in which generative AI can be used directly by judges, as well as lawyers and litigants.
The judicial use of GenAI is under increasing scrutiny around the world. In the U.S., the chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently called for binding judicial guidelines after two federal judges issued erroneous AI-generated court orders.
The guidance for judges in England and Wales was originally published in April last year and was updated last week.
Irish judges have received training on AI and will take part in further training events next year focused on AI and its impact on the judiciary “in collaboration with other common law jurisdictions”.
The first formal guidance for Irish judges was produced last year by Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell’s Judiciary Commission, set up outside the Judicial Assembly.
The 11-page document outlines that judicial stakeholders must ensure that the use of AI tools is “consistent with the overriding obligation to ensure the integrity and reliability of legal research and analysis that underpins judicial decision-making.”
It added that the use of generative AI tools “must be consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligations to uphold the independence and integrity of the administration of justice and the protection of fundamental rights.”
The guidelines state that “judges remain accountable for their decisions.”
The guidelines state that when judicial support staff, including judicial assistants, use generative AI tools, they must disclose this to supervising judges to “ensure that judges are aware of the need for special vigilance and scrutiny” of their work.
Ethical issues and concerns regarding copyright and data protection are also highlighted throughout the guidance, with the judges warning of the risks of “gender and racial bias” in AI and “unintentional disclosure of private, confidential, suppressed, or privileged information.”
The guidelines also address the use of generated AI by others, including lawyers, barristers, and ordinary litigants, as well as the challenges posed by “deepfake” technology.
The Workplace Relations Commission recently published new guidance for litigants on the use of generative AI tools following a case in which GenAI was accused of including “phantom citations” in submissions from unrepresented claimants.
Guidelines for judges highlight “red flags” that could indicate the use of generative AI in submissions, such as the use of U.S. spelling or references to foreign case law.
The guidelines state that neither legal representatives nor ordinary litigants will have to disclose their use of generative AI, but judges may ask questions if concerns arise.
“There is no reason why a legal representative should mention the use of AI as long as it is used responsibly and the output is properly tested and verified, but this will depend on the circumstances,” the document states.
“If a judge has concerns about material provided to the court, the judge can request confirmation that legal experts have independently verified the accuracy of the research and case citations generated by the GenAI chatbot.”
However, the report notes that ordinary litigants and MacKenzie’s friends “often lack the skills and training to independently verify legal information provided by GenAI chatbots.”
“If it appears that a GenAI chatbot may have been used by a party other than the representative in the preparation of a submission or other document, the judge may need to ask whether and how the GenAI chatbot was used, and what checks (if any) have been made on accuracy.”
A spokesperson for the Judicial Council, which does not produce the guideline document, said the guideline document “should be viewed as an evolving document that will be continually updated to reflect the latest developments in GenAI technology and its applications.”
Dr Brian Barry, Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin, said: irish legal news He said Ireland’s guidelines drew extensively from those in England and Wales and reflected a “sensible approach”.
He said: “Given the rapid pace of development, a key element is to maintain this as a living document. It is also encouraging that judicial training on AI is high on the Judicial Council’s agenda.”
“These guidelines and judicial training could encourage the Irish judiciary to look to other jurisdictions where AI is already enhancing the courtroom experience, leveraging AI technology to provide clearer public information, streamline case management and guide litigants through the court process.”
A spokesperson for the Judicial Council said: “The Judicial Research Commission, on behalf of the Judicial Council, is responsible for overseeing the education and training of the Irish judiciary in accordance with section 17 of the Judicial Councils Act 2019.”
“Judicial education in the field of artificial intelligence is provided through a wide range of initiatives, including programs run by national and international organizations.
“Over the past years, members of the judiciary have taken part in programs and workshops organized by EU legal training institutions that focus on various aspects of AI and digitalisation.
“The training provided to the judiciary includes the ethical and practical implications of AI in legal decision-making, sentencing, and evidence evaluation.
“A series of training events are planned in 2026 in collaboration with other common law jurisdictions to explore AI and its implications for justice.”
- Update: Guidelines for judges on the use of generative AI have been published and are available on the Judicial Council website.
