Court technology guide
How is generative AI being used in Singapore courts?
What can court users use generative AI for, and where does responsibility remain?
Book a Free Initial ConsultationWhat can court users use generative AI for, and where does responsibility remain?
Singapore’s courts permit court users to use generative AI tools when preparing court documents, subject to existing court rules and each user’s responsibility for accuracy and appropriateness. The Judiciary has also introduced AI-generated case summaries for Small Claims Tribunals users. These tools provide assistance and factual summaries; they do not decide cases or provide legal advice.
What should happen first
Evidence and decisions to organise
- Read the applicable court rules, practice directions and official AI guidance for the proceeding.
- Verify every fact, citation, quotation and legal proposition against an authoritative source.
- Remove confidential or personal information unless the selected tool and intended use are appropriate and authorised.
Who this guide is for
Situations requiring a structured assessment
A lawyer or litigant needs to check the court’s expectations for AI-assisted documents.
A Small Claims Tribunals user has received an AI-generated case summary.
A business wants to understand the limits of AI assistance in a Singapore proceeding.
Practical analysis
Assistance does not transfer responsibility
The Singapore Judiciary’s Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users applies from 1 October 2024. It explains that court users are not prohibited from using generative AI to prepare court documents, while remaining responsible for complying with court rules and ensuring that material submitted is accurate and appropriate.
Generative AI can produce plausible but incorrect text, authorities or quotations. A user should check the original judgment, legislation, practice direction or evidential record rather than relying on the generated answer. Confidentiality, personal data, privilege and any terms governing the selected tool also require attention.
The Judiciary has separately introduced AI-generated summaries in the Small Claims Tribunals. The official guide explains their purpose and limitations. A summary helps a user understand the parties’ filed positions; it does not offer legal advice, determine the merits or replace the documents in the case.
Records to assemble
- The current version of the governing court rule or practice direction.
- The original judgment or legislation supporting each legal proposition.
- The filed evidence and procedural orders in the particular matter.
- A record of material AI assistance where disclosure is required or prudent.
- An accuracy check for names, dates, amounts, quotations and neutral citations.
- A confidentiality and personal-data check before information is entered into a tool.
Practical routes
How the matter may move forward
Define the task
Use AI only for a clearly understood research, drafting or comprehension task.
Control the input
Protect confidential, privileged and personal information.
Verify the output
Check every material statement against the case record and primary source.
Take responsibility
Ensure the final document complies with the rules and accurately states the position.
Frequently asked questions
Are court users prohibited from using generative AI?
The Judiciary’s guide states that court users are not prohibited from using generative AI tools to prepare court documents. Existing rules still apply, and the user remains responsible for the result.
Can an AI-generated legal citation be filed without checking it?
It should be checked against the original authoritative source. Generative AI can invent or misstate cases, quotations, dates and legal propositions.
Does an AI-generated Small Claims Tribunals summary decide the case?
No. It summarises filed information to assist users. It does not provide legal advice, determine the merits or replace the tribunal’s decision.
Can confidential client or case information be entered into any AI tool?
Confidentiality, privilege, personal-data obligations, authorisation and the tool’s handling of data must be considered before information is entered.
Who is responsible for an AI-assisted court document?
The person submitting or relying on the document remains responsible for its accuracy, appropriateness and compliance with the applicable court requirements.