Ireland's Judicial Council issues practical genAI guidelines for judges
14 Nov 2025 - Ireland has released guidance for judicial office holders on when and how generative AI can be used in court-related work. The message is clear: use AI with care, keep it scoped to low-risk tasks, and protect the integrity of proceedings.
What the guidance says
- Use genAI on work devices only. Avoid personal devices for any court work.
- Limit use to routine, administrative tasks. Do not rely on genAI for legal analysis or decision-making.
- Verify everything. Any AI output must be checked and confirmed for accuracy before use.
- Protect confidentiality. Never enter private, privileged, or suppressed information into public AI tools.
- Reduce data exposure. Switch off chat history where possible or delete interactions regularly.
- Respect copyright. Responsibility for compliance remains with the judge, even when AI assists.
- Be alert to deepfakes. Scrutinize digital evidence and question authenticity where needed.
- Report breaches. If private or privileged information is disclosed, notify superiors and report to the relevant supervisory authority and the courts service's data protection officer.
Why it matters for courts
The guidance acknowledges AI's growing footprint in legal practice and courtroom filings. It also addresses a real risk: AI-generated submissions with fabricated or misquoted citations. Recent Irish cases spotlighted that risk, including a discrimination claim where AI-generated material was riddled with irrelevant and non-existent citations.
The standard to apply stays the same: accuracy, independence, and fairness. AI can assist with admin, but it cannot short-circuit judicial scrutiny or the duty to protect rights.
Expectations for AI use by parties
Judges are encouraged to set expectations when AI shows up in submissions or evidence. That includes requiring parties to confirm sources, disclose AI assistance where appropriate, and stand over accuracy and authenticity.
Where credibility is uncertain-especially with audio, video, or images-close questioning and disclosure orders may be justified.
Immediate actions for judges
- Update your personal workflow: keep AI usage on work hardware; disable or clear chat history.
- Adopt a verification step: cross-check any AI-assisted outputs against primary sources.
- Set courtroom expectations: clarify that AI-generated citations and summaries must be verifiable.
- Plan for breaches: have a simple playbook for notifying superiors, the supervisory authority, and the DPO.
Implications for practitioners
- Disclose responsibly if AI was used and be ready to provide sources and underlying materials.
- Do not feed client confidentials into public AI tools. Use approved, enterprise-grade solutions where available.
- Double-check citations, quotations, and case summaries. Assume the court will test them.
- Anticipate deepfake challenges. Preserve originals, metadata, and chain of custody.
Context in Ireland and the UK
The guidance lands alongside actions from other Irish bodies. On 30 October, the Workplace Relations Commission issued advice after a case involving unreliable AI-generated material. On 11 November, the Law Society of Ireland released guidance for solicitors on ethical and effective AI use.
Ireland is also moving in step with the UK judiciary, which updated its own AI guidance earlier this year, stressing responsible use, risk awareness, and confidentiality.
Bottom line
AI can speed up routine court work, but it cannot replace legal judgment. Keep it constrained, keep it verifiable, and treat confidentiality as non-negotiable. Where AI touches evidence, assume you'll need to probe authenticity.
Further resources
Your membership also unlocks:
