Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring
Last Verified: 30 January 2026
Latest Entry:
Ad/Marketing Communication
UK‑based legal commentary and comparative analysis of international case law on AI related legal issues. This Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker 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.
Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker. Will AI make judges obsolete? Will it replace judicial functions, and if so, to what extent? Can judges be replaced entirely, or will AI only assist? What do judges, tech leaders, legal institutions and experts actually believe and what have they said on the issue?
Key Stats Line & Charts
This live tracker collects public comments and official materials on whether AI will replace judges or become part of judging. It covers AI judges, decision support for judges, judicial automation and AI in courts across jurisdictions. Each entry records the speaker or source, role, date, jurisdiction, stance, function and a primary source link. Use the filters to browse by stance, function, jurisdiction and year. Updated weekly.
There’s a lot to upload here, so please bear with me…
If you want the Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker that can be found here.
If you want the AI Hallucination Cases Tracker that can be found here.
Also don’t forget to subscribe to my news letter here if you haven’t already!
Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker
| Date | Speaker | Role | Country | Context | Notes | Year | Court Level | Function | Quote | Stance | Source | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15/10/2025 | Sir Geoffrey Vos | Judge | UK | Addressing the annual Legal Geek networking | TBC | 2025 | TBC | Quantum | ‘big question is what should it be used for?’.’The answer is 'difficult and potentially troubling', ’Nobody can tell me why it should not be used to assess, for example, the damages to be awarded in a personal injury case.' 'So acknowledging that some decisions may be taken by AI, why should we balk at its use more widely?' 'We need a serious debate now to consider what human rights people should have in the light of more capable AI,' he said. This should include whether AI decision-making meets the European Convention on Human Rights definition of an independent, impartial tribunal established by law. 'Some say yes, others say no" | Yes to some extent | lawgazette.co.uk | TBC |
| 13/04/2024 | Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon | Judge | Singapore | Keynote address at the Inaugural Singapore‑India Conference on Technology (“Judicial Responsibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”) | elivered in India; speech published by Singapore Courts on 15 April 2024. | TBC | General | "The allure of AI and the possibility of “AI judges” should not cause us to lose sight of the aspects of judging that remain, and should remain, a fundamentally human endeavour. These are the aspects of our adjudicative responsibility that must endure. But at the same time, the potentially transformative impact of AI on our dispute resolution systems cannot and should not be ignored or reversed, and it will be crucial for human judges to be able effectively to manage the use of AI within the adjudicative process. Hence, there will be aspects of the adjudicative responsibility that will evolve." | Assist Not Replace | judiciary.gov.sg | TBC | |
| 12/10/2024 | Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo | Judge | Philippines | TBC | General | “Courts should still be populated with human judges if we are to expect that empathy and compassion would still go into the consideration of granting equitable remedies.” | Assist Not Replace | judiciary.gov.ph | TBC | |||
| 31/01/2025 | Justice Vytautas Mizaras | Judge | Lithuania | TBC | General | "The integration of AI in judicial processes should always strive to reinforce, rather than replace, the human elements that are essential to justice. By prioritizing a judge-in-the-loop approach, we preserve the trust and confidence that society places in its legal institutions, ensuring that our pursuit of justice remains both fair and humane...The absence of a human judge in such cases would likely violate the right to a fair trial, as there would be judgment articulating the legal reasoning behind the decision. Without this foundation, the essential transparency and accountability of judicial decisions would be lost.If AI-based technology is to be employed in the judiciary, it must assist rather than replace human judges. The inclusion of human reasoning is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive requirement to ensure that judgments are comprehensible, legitimate, and meet the high standards of justification demanded by the rule of law." | Assist Not Replace | echr.coe.int | TBC | |||
| 24/10/2024 | Chief Justice Richard Wagner | Judge | Canada | TBC | General | “Public confidence in our courts is grounded in judges’ sound decision making. Judges must therefore maintain exclusive responsibility for their decisions; AI cannot replace or be delegated judicial decision-making. At the same time, the Council’s new Guidelines acknowledge there may be opportunities to leverage AI responsibly to support judges.” | Assist Not Replace | cjc-ccm.ca | TBC | |||
| 31/12/24 | Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. | Judge | USA | TBC | General | "...In last year’s Year End Report, I opined that the application of discretion in these situations explains why machines will never fully replace human judges. But it also creates fertile ground for debate and criticism..." | Assist Not Replace | supremecourt.gov | ||||
| 18/02/2025 | Baroness Carr | Judge | UK | | | "...We're going to be looking at obvious ways of how AI could improve the delivery of justice. We're never going to have robot judges, I am quite sure about that. But I absolutely equally think that there is scope for bringing AI in carefully, cautiously, to look at chronologies or triaging, for example, just to give some examples..." | Assist Not Replace | judiciary.uk | ||||
| 9/9/2025 | Chief Justice Richard Niall | Judge | Australia | | "...In my view, there are aspects of the judicial function which should not be entrusted to AI – fact-finding, the exercise of judicial discretion, and producing reasons for judgment. While the capability of AI and the public’s perception of it will necessarily evolve over time, my current view is that these integral elements of the judicial function should remain the province of human minds, replete with values, creativity, life experience and imperfections. To a real extent, the problems associated with the judicial process – time and cost – reflect the human involvement in the process..." | Assist Not Replace | supremecourt.vic.gov.au | |||||
| 3/12/2024 | Lord Justice Birss | Judge | UK | | "...One could imagine for example that a decision relating to children and whether someone had committed a crime might be one where we wish to maintain human decision making. On the other hand, one might imagine that a large number of small money claims or some other similar kinds of case, might be more efficiently done by AI, in the first instance. There could then be a right of appeal to human judges after the event..." | Yes to some extent | judiciary.uk | |||||
| 1/5/2025 | Dame Siobhan Keegan | Judge | Northern Ireland (UK) | "...Returning to the question I posed at the outset, ‘Whether AI should replace judges and lawyers?’, you will all be relieved to know that my view is that it should not. It is clear that AI is currently playing a role in the legal profession, especially in the commercial field, and will no doubt continue to do so into the future, particularly as technology evolves..." | Assist Not Replace | judiciaryni.uk | ||||||
| 17 May 2024 | Justice Mary J. Greenwood | Judge | USA | “It’s important to note that generative AI is only a tool,” said Justice Greenwood. “It’s not an end, and it’s not a substitute for judicial decision making and due process." | Assist Not Replace | newsroom.courts.ca.gov | ||||||
| 10/10/2025 | Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas | Judge | USA | | nycourts.gov | |||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | | |||||||||
| | | | |
Will AI Replace Judges? The “Stance” Column
These comments are often nuanced and so it’s difficult to allocate a clear stance. For now, I have opted for the following:
- Yes – The quote expresses a clear “yes” or very positive/supportive stance.
- Yes to come extent – This is where the quote indicates some judicial functions will be carried out by AI, but not all.
- Likely – The quote leans positive or affirmative but with some uncertainty or mild tone.
- Mixed/Uncertain – The quote has a balanced or unclear stance, perhaps mentioning both pros and cons (neutral or mixed sentiment).
- Unlikely – The quote leans negative or doubtful, hinting that the answer is “probably no” or expressing mild opposition.
- No – The quote is clearly “no” or very negative/opposed in stance.
AI Replacing Judges: What the Quotes Show
The tracker aggregates verifiable statements on judicial automation, augmentation and role change. It distinguishes between complete replacement claims and task-level substitution affecting judges, clerks and court staff, as well as broader effects on judicial functions and decision-making.
Function and Court Level Column
The Function Column shows what part of judging the comment is about, for example will AI calculate quantum, make case management decisions, sentencing etc. The Court level shows which court the comment refers to, such as top, appeal, trial or tribunal.
Other AI Legal Trackers
If you are looking for the other Trackers maintained on this blog, you can find those here:
Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
Judicial AI Use Tracker (How are Judges Using AI?)
AI Equality, Bias, AI Discrimination Case Tracker
Government AI Hallucination Tracker
Will AI Replace Lawyers?
Certain decisions made by judges are likely to be automated to some degree. However, where judicial discretion is essential, it is unlikely that AI will replace judges.
What does “ Will AI replace judges” mean?
It refers to artificial intelligence carrying out tasks or decisions that are currently made by human judges. This can range from administrative help and decision support to full automation of certain rulings, such as damages or sentencing.
Are any courts already using AI judges?
Some courts are testing AI tools, I will be uploading articles on this exact question shortly.
Why are people debating AI in judicial decision-making now?
Advances in machine learning and generative AI have made automation more capable. Judges and legal bodies are discussing how far these tools can go without undermining fairness, transparency and public confidence in the courts.
What is meant by “judicial automation”?
Judicial automation covers any use of technology that reduces or replaces manual court tasks. It includes AI systems for research, drafting, scheduling, and even predictive analysis of case outcomes.
What safeguards are needed if AI is used in courts?
Many are asking for transparency, disclosure of AI use, human oversight, appeal rights, and clear accountability for errors or bias.
Who is tracking these developments?
This tracker seeks to bring together verified statements from judges, lawyers, academics and regulators on AI judges and AI in courts, showing where real change is happening.
How often is the tracker updated?
It is updated weekly as new comments, policies and pilot projects emerge.
Can I submit information or sources?
Yes please do! Judges, practitioners, academics and regulators can submit reliable materials or verified quotes with a source link. Please use the “contact us” link above.
How accurate is the information in this tracker?
Every effort has been made to check that the information and sources in this tracker are accurate and up to date. Each entry links to a primary or verifiable source wherever possible. However, readers should always review the original material and form their own view. The tracker is designed to share reliable information on these important topics, not to act as legal advice or a final authority.