PLGI Cover Page

Policy, Law, and Governance Insights

eISSN : 3107-7706 | Frequency: Half-yearly

Editor in Chief : Prof. (Dr.) Rashmi Aggarwal

About : Policy, Law, and Governance Insights is a bi-annual, peer-reviewed, national e-journal dedicated to publishing scholarly research and insights into policy analysis, legal frameworks, governance models, and public administration. The journal seeks to promote interdisciplinary dialogue on public polic Read more

Article Metrics
Views : 185 | Downloads: 540
Crossref Citations: Loading...

View in Google Scholar
Dimensions
Altmetric Attention
PlumX:

AI in the Courtrooms: Global Expert Systems, Ethical Challenges, and Policy Implications for Regulating the Use of AI

  • Meera Patel* Meera Patel Corresponding author Research Scholar School of Law & Constitutional Studies, Shobhit Institute of Engineering & Technology (Deemed to be University), Meerut (UP), India, India ,  
  • Mohd Imran Mohd Imran Professor Director of Academics UILS, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab. India
Received: July 10, 2025
Accepted: September 10, 2025
Published: December 15, 2025
Volume: 1 (2) | Page: 1-14

Abstract

Purpose:- This article examines the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI)–based expert systems in judicial and legal processes across major jurisdictions and critically evaluates their advantages and ethical challenges. It aims to analyse how courts and legal professionals worldwide are deploying AI to enhance efficiency, access to justice, and case management, while assessing the risks such technologies pose to transparency, accountability, fairness, and human discretion in adjudication.

Design/methodology:- The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal and comparative research methodology. It analyses legal frameworks, judicial guidelines, policy documents, and reported case law from multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union, and India. The paper also reviews existing AI expert systems used by courts and legal practitioners, such as predictive analytics tools, legal research platforms, automated filing systems, and generative AI applications, to evaluate their functional scope and regulatory treatment.

Findings:- The study finds that AI expert systems have significantly improved judicial efficiency by automating clerical tasks, streamlining legal research, and supporting case management. However, their use raises serious concerns about algorithmic bias, opaque decision-making, privacy violations, accountability gaps, and the risk of hallucinated or fabricated legal authorities. Jurisdictions that have adopted structured regulatory approaches— particularly the European Union and Canada—demonstrate stronger safeguards through transparency obligations and the “human-in-the-loop” principle. Conversely, inconsistent or fragmented regulation increases the risk of misuse and over-reliance on AI in judicial contexts.

Practical implications:- The paper highlights the need for robust ethical guidelines, judicial training, and regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible use of AI in legal systems. AI should function strictly as an assistive tool, with final decision-making authority remaining with human judges and lawyers. The study also underscores the urgent need for coherent policy frameworks governing the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems. It highlights the importance of adopting structured regulatory models that incorporate principles such as transparency, accountability, explainability, data protection, and the “human-in-the-loop” approach.

Originality/value:- This article offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of global AI deployment in courtrooms. It contributes to the evolving discourse on balancing technological innovation with judicial ethics, constitutional values, and procedural fairness.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, expert systems, judiciary, legal technology, algorithmic bias, judicial ethics, access to justice.

References

  1. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (2024, September). Long-range plan for information technology in the federal judiciary: FY 2025 update. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/it-long-range-plan-fy-2025-update.pdf
  2. Aiken, S. (2020). Navigating AI: Ethical dilemmas in predictive legal technology. Canadian Journal of Law, Technology & Innovation, 15, 77–102.
  3. Alarie, B., & Griffin, B. X. (2022). Using machine learning to crack the tax code. Tax Notes Federal, 174, 661–668.
  4. Ashley, K. D., & Rissland, E. L. (2020). AI in law and legal practice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, 159–185.
  5. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31
  6. Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq. (2008).
  7. Brown, M. C. (2019). AI and the law: How AI is reshaping the legal sector. Touro Law Review, 35, 315–330.
  8. Brown, W. (2019). AI legal systems in Canada: Opportunities and challenges for lawyers. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 30(2), 179–198.
  9. Buckeye Tr. v. PCIT, No. ITA 1051/Bang/2024 (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore 2024). https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1735624480-urq7dV-1-TO.pdf
  10. Canadian Judicial Council. (2024, September). Guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in Canadian courts. https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf
  11. Casey, A. J., & Niblett, A. (2019). Self-driving laws? Automation in legal services. UCLA Law Review, 66, 1015–1065.
  12. Cass v. 1410088 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 6959 (CanLII), 34
  13. Centre for Human and Social Sciences. (2023). AI in the judiciary. CHSS. https://chss.org.in/ai-in-judiciary/
  14. Cofone, I. (2021). AI and judicial decision-making. In F. Martin-Bariteau & T. Scassa (Eds.), Artificial intelligence & the law in Canada, Toronto. LexisNexis.
  15. Dixon, H. B., Jr., et al. (2025). Navigating AI in the judiciary: New guidelines for judges and their chambers.Sedona Conference Journal, 26, 1. https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/Navigating%20AI%20in%20the%20Judiciary_PDF_021925.pdf
  16. Dow, S. (2025). The use of AI in Canadian courts. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 34.
  17. Drummond v. Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd., (2018). ONSC 5350, ¶ 10; Intahchomphoo, C., Vellino, A., Gundersen, E., et al. (2020, May 11). References to artificial intelligence in Canada's court cases. Cambridge University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341291571
  18. e-CODEX regulation published. (2022, June 3). European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) Blog. https://eapil.org/2022/06/03/e-codex-regulation-published/
  19. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. (2024, May 30). High-level summary of the AI Act. artificialintelligenceact.eu. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/
  20. Federal Court of Australia. (2025, April 29). Notice to the profession. Artificial intelligence use in the Federal Court of Australia https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/notice-to-profession/29-april-2025
  21. Fine, A., Berthelot, E. R., & Marsh, S. (2025). Public perceptions of judges' use of AI tools in courtroom decision-making: An examination of legitimacy, fairness, trust, and procedural justice. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040476
  22. Flores et al. v. Motorola Solutions Inc. et al., No. 1:2020cv01128 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 14, 2020). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Privacy.pdf
  23. Grossman, M. R., & Cormack, G. V. (2011). Technology-assisted review in e-discovery can be more effective and more efficient than exhaustive manual review. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 17(3), 1–48. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=jolt
  24. Hadfield, G. K. (2021). The rise of AI in law: Legal predictions and decision-making in Canada. Canadian Business Law Journal, 40, 243–267.
  25. High Court of Kerala. (2025, July 19). Official memorandum: Implementation of policy regarding use of artificial intelligence tools in the district judiciary (HCKL/7490/2025-DI-3) [Memorandum]. https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-07-22/mt4bw6n7/Kerala_HC_AI_Guidelines.pdf
  26. Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., II, & Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behaviour of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0174698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698
  27. Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Arul, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., & others. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633–705. https://oar.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/pr1r24q/1/AccountableAlgorithms.pdf
  28. Larson, J., Mattu, S., Kirchner, L., & Angwin, J. (2016, May 23). How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm
  29. Legg, M. (2025, September 29). More people are using AI in court, not a lawyer. It could cost you money and your case. UNSW Newsroom. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/09/more-people-are-using-ai-in-court-not-a-lawyer-it-could-cost-you-money-and-your-case
  30. LexisNexis Canada. (2025, December 3). Artificial intelligence & administrative law in Canada: Striking the right balance. https://www.lexisnexis.com/blogs/en-ca/b/canadian-product-spotlight/posts/artificial-intelligence-and-administrative-law-in-canada-striking-the-right-balance
  31. Lotlikar, P. (2025, July 5). CJI Gavai vows to tackle case pendency, launches Bombay Bar's AI guidelines and app. Free Press Journal. https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/cji-gavai-vows-to-tackle-case-pendency-launches-bombay-bars-ai-guidelines-and-app
  32. Macpherson, C. (2025, June 10). AI and fake citations: A challenge for lawyers, regulators and the courts. Practical Law, w-047-2334. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-047-2334
  33. Martyn, S. (2021). AI, legal ethics, and the duty of competence: A Canadian perspective. Canadian Legal Ethics Journal, 32, 312–335.
  34. Mazilescu, I., & Entcheva, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence and digitalisation of judicial cooperation – The main provisions in recent EU legislation. eucrim, (3), 202–205. https://eucrim.eu/media/issue/pdf/eucrim_issue_2024-03.pdf
  35. McCarthy, J., et al. (1955, August 31). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
  36. McCray, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence in legal practice: Benefits and risks for lawyers. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 20, 197–215.
  37. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2025, December 5). Use of AI-based digital content in the judiciary [Press release]. Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2199313&reg=3&lang=1
  38. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2025, March 20). Use of AI in Supreme Court case management [Press release]. Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113224&reg=3&lang=2
  39. NexLaw. (2025, September 11). The rise of robo-justice: How AI is revolutionising Canadian law. NexLaw Knowledge Centre. https://www.nexlaw.ai/blog/the-rise-of-robo-justice-how-ai-is-revolutionizing-canadian-law/
  40. Özer, M. (2024). Is artificial intelligence hallucinating? Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 35(4), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.5080/u27587
  41. Pandey, T. (2025, September, 29) Bogus AI case citations in Delhi High Court raise red flags. The Economic Times. https://m.economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/bogus-ai-case-citations-in-delhi-hc-raise-red-flags/amp_articleshow/124239436.cms
  42. Parliament of Canada. (2022). Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 (1st Sess., 44th Parl.). LEGISinfo. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27
  43. Patel, M., & Imran, M. (2024). Navigating the future: AI-driven expert systems in the legal landscape of the USA, Canada, Australia, and India. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30, 6222–6235. https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/9627/7308
  44. Remus, D., & Levy, F. (2016). Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30(3), 501–558. https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/7/10.1-Remus_Levy.pdf
  45. Roth, A. (2021). The use of algorithms in criminal adjudication. In W. Barfield (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the law of algorithms (pp. 407–428). Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97811084/81960/frontmatter/9781108481960_frontmatter.pdf
  46. Sharma, D. (2023, May 28). Lawyer faces trouble after using ChatGPT for research, AI tool comes up with fake cases that never existed. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/lawyer-faces-trouble-after-using-chatgpt-for-research-ai-tool-comes-up-with-fake-cases-that-never-existed-2385542-2023-05-28
  47. Shelley, M. (2012). Frankenstein. Penguin Classics.
  48. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137S. Ct. 2290 (2017)
  49. Supreme Court of India. (2023, May 23). Bid document: Design, development, and implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) solution, tools for transcribing arguments and court proceedings at the Supreme Court of India (Ref. No. AI Solutions/2023/SCI).
  50. Terzidou, K. (2022). The use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary and its compliance with the right to a fair trial. Journal of Judicial Administration, 31(3), 154–179. https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/51591/1/kterzidou_jja_v31_pt3.pdf
  51. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2019). Directive on automated decision-making. Government of Canada. https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592
  52. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://phil415.pbworks.com/f/TuringComputing.pdf
  53. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (2025, October 23). Grassley releases judges’ responses owning up to AI use, calls for continued oversight and regulation. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-releases-judges-responses-owning-up-to-ai-use-calls-for-continued-oversight-and-regulation
  54. Warkentin, J. (2020). ROSS Intelligence and AI in Canadian employment law. Canadian Labour & Employment Law Journal, 36, 87–110.
  55. Yoon, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the legal profession: Ethical and regulatory challenges. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 42, 657–680.
  56. Zid, T. (2019, December 5). Robinson, R. (7 February, 2019) Meet Aurora: Finland's AI assistant aims to give each citizen tailored advice. ZDNET. https://www.zdnet.com/article/meet-aurora-finlands-ai-assistant-aims-to-give-each-citizen-tailored-advice/
Recently Cited By
Loading citations...
Citation copied to clipboard
×
Cite this Article