Guidelines for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Tribunals
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
These guidelines assist judges, judicial officers, tribunal members, and judicial support staff in New Zealand courts and tribunals who wish to use generative artificial intelligence tools in their work. They outline key risks such as inaccuracies, fabrications, biases, and privacy concerns, while offering practical mitigation strategies including maintaining confidentiality, verifying accuracy, and adhering to security protocols. The document also addresses the use of generative AI by lawyers and lay litigants appearing before the courts.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Judges, judicial officers, tribunal members, and support staff across New Zealand courts and tribunals who intend to use generative AI tools in their work.
What the document contains
The document covers the definition and mechanics of generative AI chatbots and large language models, identifies key risks such as hallucinations and privacy breaches, and provides operational rules for judges, tribunal members, and support staff regarding security, accuracy verification, and disclosure.
The document does not provide a mandatory in-house AI tool for the judiciary at the time of publication, nor does it establish formal statutory penalties for the unauthorized use of AI within court proceedings.
- Judicial officers and support staff must not enter private, confidential, suppressed, or legally privileged information into publicly available AI chatbots.
- Generative AI tools are prone to hallucinations, fabrications, and factual inaccuracies, meaning all output must be independently verified before reliance.
- Judges and tribunal members do not need to disclose their use of generative AI, whereas support staff should discuss their use with their supervising judge.
- Courts must remain vigilant regarding submissions from lawyers and lay litigants that may contain unverified AI-generated text or fabricated case citations.
- Generative AI is not a substitute for rigorous legal research using trusted sources and is ill-suited for independent legal analysis.
1) Understand GenAI and its limitations 2) Uphold confidentiality, suppression, and privacy 3) Ensure accountability and accuracy 4) Be aware of ethical issues 5) Maintain security 6) Disclosing GenAI use 7) Be aware of GenAI use by others Examples: Potential uses and risks of generative AI in courts and tribunals FAQs List of courts and tribunals
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
You must check the accuracy of any information you have been provided by a GenAI chatbot before it is relied upon.
3) Ensure accountability and accuracy
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
2/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Even with the best prompts, the output may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or biased.
1) Understand GenAI and its limitations
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
You may be assisted by reference to the bench book Kia Mana te Tangata | Judging in Context: A Handbook.
4) Be aware of ethical issues
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
4/5Protection of personal data and private life
Do not enter any information that is private, confidential, suppressed or legally privileged information.
2) Uphold confidentiality, suppression, and privacy
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Clerks/research counsel and judicial support staff: Discuss with your supervising judge/judicial officer/tribunal member how you are using GenAI chatbots
6) Disclosing GenAI use
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
1/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
judicial staff should immediately report this to their supervising judge/judicial officer/tribunal member.
2) Uphold confidentiality, suppression, and privacy
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
The Ministry of Justice has recently completed a Generative AI Security and Privacy Review for the courts.
Page 8 of 9
screening score · 2026-10-23