Judicial AI Use Tracker (How are Judges using AI?)
Below is the Judicial AI Use Tracker, which monitors how judges are using AI and records any official guidance, commentary, or policy developments on judicial use.
This tracker captures both the benefits and challenges of AI in judicial contexts ranging from tools that enhance efficiency, consistency, and access to justice, to cases and discussions highlighting risks. It aims to provide a balanced picture of how AI is shaping judicial reasoning, case management, and evidence assessment.
Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring
Publication Date: 21 May 2025
Last Verified: 13 April 2026
Latest Case Chronologically: Campos v Munoz (US)
Latest Legal Article: 1,000+ Suspected or Confirmed AI Hallucination Cases: UK Reaches 54, Concerns of Judgments containing Hallucinations Mount in India and Possible Citation Errors in Canada
Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister) click here for details.
Ad/Marketing Communication
UK‑based legal commentary and comparative analysis of international case law on AI related legal issues. This Judicial AI Use Tracker (how are judges using AI) forms part of lecturing/teaching law and writing/editing law articles/reports and is communicated solely in connection with promoting or advertising Matthew Lee’s practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
What the Tracker and Charts Will Show (when research is complete)
The public Judicial AI Use Tracker below lists Dates, Case Name/Guidance, Country, Area of Law, Actor, AI Tool, a Brief Description of AI Use and the year. There are hyperlinks on the Case Name/Guidance column to show the source where available.
Key Stats Line and Charts
Judicial AI Use Tracker
| Date | Case Name/Guidance | Country | Area of Law | Actor | AI Tool | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22-Aug-2025 | Evans v HMRC | UK | Tax | Judge | Co-Pilot | Judge expressly stated how and why AI was used: “I have used AI in the production of this decision This application is well-suited to this approach. It is a discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing. The parties’ respective positions on the issue which I must decide are contained entirely in their written submissions and the other materials placed before me. I have not heard any evidence; nor am I called upon to make any decision as to the honesty or credibility of any party.” |
| 23-Jul-2025 | Levon v CorMedix USA | US | TBC | Judge | AI suspected not confirmed | Lawyers wrote to Judge stating that three cases had been cited by the Judge, but the outcomes of those cases had been reversed; Six direct quotations from case law that were entirely fabricated; One cited case purportedly from the Southern District of New York did not exist at all; Two quotes attributed to CorMedix press releases were not issued |
| 25-Apr-2025 | UK | All | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary | All | Previous guidance which has now been updated on 31 October 2025. Please see below. | |
| 25-Feb-2025 | US | Crime | Judge | ChatGPT | Judges used LLMs like ChatGPT to explore responses to extreme heat and verify “common knowledge” about hot cars. Some used AI to highlight the gap between assumptions and admissible evidence. | |
| 6-Sep-2024 | United States v Deleon | US | Crime | Judge | Unclear | Federal judge turned to AI like ChatGPT to interpret a key legal term in a mean's appeal of an 11 year prison sentence. |
| 24-May-2023 | Snell v United Specialty | US | Civil | Judge | Bard, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude | Considered ordinary meaning of contested statutory phrases and discussing the results in opinions |
| 15-Sep-2023 | TBC | UK | Unclear | Judge | ChatGPT | Generated a one‑paragraph summary the judge already knew was correct |
| 1-Mar-2024 | Re: Bail Order | India | Crime | Judge | Unclear | Used AI tool to get a broader picture of bail jurisprudence when an assault is one that involves cruelty. |
| 1-Jan-2023 | Colombia | TBC | Judge | ChatGPT | Asked four ChatGPT questions and pasted the answers to speed drafting | |
| 19-Mar-2019 | TBC | Estonia | Civil | Pilot | TBC | Issues initial ruling appealable to a human judge |
| 2018 | TBC | Brazil | TBC | TBC | Victor | Machine‑learning model that triages incoming appeals and flags those lacking the constitutionally required “general repercussion” |
| 1-Aug-2017 | TBC | China | TBC | TBC | TBC | AI reviews pleadings, evaluates evidence, drafts outcome; human judge considers |
| 1-Jul-2016 | State v Loomis | US | Crime | TBC | TBC | Use of proprietary risk‑matrix considered warning of limits |
| 31-Oct-2025 | UK | All | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary | All | This refreshed guidance has been developed to assist judicial office holders in relation tothe use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It updates and replaces the guidance documentissued in April 2025 | |
| 3-Mar-2016 | Case Name TBC (BBC Article) | India | Civil | Judge | TBC | India's Supreme Court has threatened legal consequences after a judge was found to have adjudicated on a property dispute using fake judgements generated by AI |
| 5-Mar-2026 | Campos v Munoz | US | "We publish this opinion to emphasize that courts and attorneys alike have a responsibility to protect the legal system against distortion by fabricated law, particularly in this new era of hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In a system of precedents that is designed to achieve consistency, predictability, and adherence to the rule of law, the judiciary cannot function properly unless judges and lawyers confirm the authenticity of cited authorities and review them to evaluate their holdings and reasoning. When the participants fail to perform this basic function, it compromises these institutional values and diminishes faith in the judicial process" |
Judicial AI Use Tracker FAQ
What does this data represent?
Each row represents an instance where AI has been referenced, used, or discussed within a judicial or official context. This includes both formal judicial reasoning and informal judicial commentary, such as speeches or ethical guidance.
What is the purpose of the Judicial AI Use Tracker?
The tracker provides an overview of how AI is entering judicial practice capturing both positive uses (e.g., enhanced efficiency, improved access to justice, analytical support) and potential risks (e.g., bias, overreliance, opacity). Its purpose is to understand emerging patterns in judicial engagement with AI.
What kind of AI tools are included?
The tracker includes a range of tools such as legal research assistants, case prediction systems, document analysis tools, transcription aids, and language models used for drafting or reasoning support.
How often is the Judicial AI Use Tracker updated?
The tracker is updated periodically as new cases, judicial comments, or official guidance emerge. Each update refines the dataset and contributes to a clearer picture of the evolving relationship between AI and judicial practice.
