Across the Asia Pacific region, the pace of AI transformation is dynamic and varied, from pioneering \u2018smart courts\u2019 initiatives to cautious, guideline-driven approaches. The judiciaries and courts in the region are actively exploring how AI can enhance efficiency, improve access to justice, and manage ever-increasing caseloads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this article, we explore trends in AI adoption in courts across the Asia Pacific region. These include AI use cases being put into practice in a judicial context, and how the courts are navigating the complex ethical challenges associated with AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Asia Pacific region truly offers a spectrum of approaches in relation to AI adoption in the courts. Let\u2019s look at a few examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Singapore has adopted a proactive, yet measured, strategy, piloting specific solutions to enhance court services. In 2024, for example, they began testing a generative AI assistant in their Small Claims Tribunals, designed to help self-represented litigants understand their rights and tribunal procedures. Beyond this, Singapore is exploring AI for summarising case materials and evidence for judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr. Tan Ken Hwee, Chief Transformation and Innovation Officer of the Singapore Courts, delivered a keynote on AI in the judicial system<\/a> at the International Association for Court Administration (IACA) Conference in Singapore in November 2024. Mr. Tan Ken Hwee shared insights on the practical applications of AI in the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c\u2026The ability of LLMs (large language models) to be able to help us sift through evidence and synthesise it and give us a composite document summarising the evidence is potentially a huge game changer,\u201d he mused.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n South Korea has accelerated its efforts with strategic planning and oversight. Early 2025, saw judges release guidelines on responsible AI use, followed by the launch of the Judicial Artificial Intelligence Committee (consisting of both internal and external experts from relevant fields). This body acts as a \u201ccentral control tower\u201d to guide, review, and evaluate the adoption of AI within the judiciary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, Australia and New Zealand have adopted more cautious, guideline-driven approaches. Recent incidents involving lawyers submitting AI-generated documents with fictitious case citations highlighted the risks of unverified AI content. This prompted courts, such as the Supreme Court of New South Wales of Australia, to issue a practice note to the profession restricting use of generative AI for drafting evidence without rigorous verification, stressing that lawyers remain fully responsible for accuracy and ethical obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judges were issued a separate set of guidelines prohibiting use of generative AI in the formulation of reasons for judgment, analysis of evidence, and for editing or proofing draft judgments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New Zealand\u2019s Chief Justice convened an advisory group, leading to separate official guidelines for on the use of generative AI by judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers. The guidelines address misinformation and emphasise verification, while also acknowledging AI\u2019s potential for improving access to justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the mid-2010s, China has implemented a nationwide \u2018smart court\u2019 system that integrates AI and big data extensively. Judges there now consult AI tools in virtually all cases, leveraging machine learning to automate legal research, draft documents, and even check for errors in verdicts. This system has dramatically cut judges’ workloads and is used to maintain consistency by analysing vast numbers of cases daily. <\/p>\n\n\n\n China’s approach is bold and tech-forward, though officials emphasise AI remains a support tool, not a replacement for human judicial independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other Asia Pacific jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Japan, and India are also actively exploring AI, often focusing on governance frameworks and pilot projects that could extend to their court systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The overarching trend across the region is a recognition that technological modernisation, including AI, is crucial for the efficient administration of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Members of the judiciary are no doubt exposed to the uptake of AI applications outside of the court system. In 2025, AI applications are on track to have a ubiquitous presence in our work and lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, this month\u2019s release of the Future of Professionals Report 2025<\/a> explored the force of AI across professions. Over half of respondents surveyed (53%) said their organisations are experiencing at least one benefit from implementing AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The advantages of time savings are also apparent. According to survey respondents, AI is anticipated to enable them to save five hours per week over the next year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us turn our attention to examples of how AI is being used in the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI is increasingly being deployed to increase efficiency in relation to research tasks and interrogating documents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI is proving valuable in making legal information more accessible to the public, particularly for self-represented litigants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several courts have rolled out AI applications or chatbots to support litigants to understand their rights, court procedures and deadlines or to understand the status of a case. These initiatives particularly benefit self-represented litigants that are unlikely to be familiar with the procedures of the court or tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI can help to optimise court operations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI can also support specialised applications, examples include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, AI’s capabilities in relation to speech recognition can help improve efficiency in courtroom, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These examples collectively illustrate the diverse ways AI is being applied to augment court operations, enhance efficiency, and improve the user experience across the Asia Pacific region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rapid adoption of AI naturally brings ethical challenges. Courts in the Asia Pacific region are keenly aware of these and are actively developing frameworks and best practices to navigate them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key concerns include the accuracy and potential for \u201challucinations\u201d \u2013 that is, AI generating false information or fake legal citations \u2013 along with issues of bias, transparency, data privacy, and crucially, safeguarding judicial independence and human oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the courts in the Asia Pacific region are at different stages of AI adoption, the overall trend is clear: AI is rapidly emerging as a valuable tool to the judiciary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The region is moving toward a future where AI will likely significantly augment court operations, reducing inefficient practices and delays. However, this is being pursued with a clear understanding that technological innovation must always reinforce trust, fairness, and the foundational principles of the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The paramount goal remains to ensure that AI serves justice, rather than compromising it, with human oversight remaining the cornerstone of every decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Matthew spoke at the TRI\/NCSC AI Policy Consortium\u2019s \u2018AI in Courts\u2019 webcast<\/a> on 16 July as a guest speaker alongside panellists, His Honour Timothy Bourke, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Australia), Judge Bowon Kwon, Intellectual Property High Court of Korea and Ken Hwee Tan, chief transformation & innovation officer, Supreme Court of Singapore. Diane Robinson, principal court research associate, NCSC, moderated their discussion.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Did you know? Thomson Reuters provides specialised legal AI tools for the judiciary. For example, CoCounsel<\/a> enables users to search judgment databases efficiently, summarise transcripts, and analyse event chronologies related to legal matters. Discover how courts are utilising AI-powered solutions, including Thomson Reuters\u2019 CoCounsel<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Are courts adopting AI in the Asia Pacific? The judiciary in the region are exploring how it can improve access to justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":414,"featured_media":11242,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[645,602],"tags":[1575,160,1914,2021],"insight_job_role":[],"insight_practice_area":[],"class_list":["entry","author-matthewheaphy","has-excerpt","post-11240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-innovation-and-disruption-in-law","category-innovation-and-technology","tag-ai","tag-courts","tag-generative-ai","tag-the-judiciary","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
South Korea<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Australia and New Zealand<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
China<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Hong Kong, Japan and India<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
5 use cases for AI in the courts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Research<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
2. Accessibility<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Court operations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
4. Specialised applications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
5. Speech to text<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Ethical considerations for the judiciary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Several best practices clearly emerge:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
AI\u2019s future in Asia Pacific courts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n