Courts across the Asia Pacific region are exploring and adopting AI to address rising caseloads and improve access to justice, with each country taking different approaches
Key points:
-
-
-
Varied AI adoption across courts in APAC — Courts across the Asia Pacific region are at different stages of AI exploration and implementation.
-
Priority on cautious, responsible implementation — Leading jurisdictions, such as South Korea, have developed comprehensive guidance that emphasizes human responsibility and accountability.
-
Key governance recommendations for courts around the world — Successful AI integration in courts requires critical elements around transparency, training, and assessment.
-
-
As with courts in the United States, court systems across the Asia Pacific region (APAC) are facing mounting caseloads as more individuals seek self-representation without professional legal advisers, leading to increased attention on access to justice.
Not surprisingly, AI has emerged as a tool with the potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the region’s judicial processes. A recent webinar hosted by the National Center for State Courts and the Thomson Reuters Institute, as part of their joint AI Policy Consortium partnership, featured the varied approaches on the use of AI in courts across APAC.
Matthew Heaphy, a director in the Asia & Emerging Markets group of Thomson Reuters, has an expertise on the current state of AI use in courts across the region, and he describes a spectrum of stages in adoption that included jurisdictions like Singapore, on one end, that are proactively piloting AI tools, such as generative AI (GenAI) assistants to help self-represented litigants and to summarize case materials for judges.
China’s courts, on the other hand, use a nationwide smart court system with extensive AI and big data integration, Heaphy says, adding that judges use AI tools for legal research, drafting, and error checking, but humans remain responsible for decisions. And other Asia Pacific jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Japan, and India are also actively exploring AI with a focus on governance frameworks and pilot projects that could extend to their court systems.
Different stages of court systems’ journeys
Many countries in the APAC region are at different stages of their AI journey, and South Korea and Australia, for example, have taken a cautious approach to AI adoption by issuing guidance to ensure responsible use and the mitigation of risks.
In South Korea, the Judicial Policy Advisory Committee, an advisory body that deliberates on judicial reform measures proposed by the Chief Justice, issued recommendations in August 2024 on AI use in judicial proceedings with a priority on underscoring principles of protecting fundamental rights and ensuring accountability and transparency, according to the Hon. Bowon Kwon, a judge on the Intellectual Property High Court of Korea. In parallel, the Association of Korean Judges for AI Studies, a research group of judges founded in 2023, published its Guidelines for the Use of AI in the Judiciary in February 2025, which further elaborates the safe use of AI by judges and litigants.
Many countries in the APAC region are at different stages of their AI journey, and South Korea and Australia, for example, have taken a cautious approach to AI adoption by issuing guidance to ensure responsible use and the mitigation of risks.
In Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales issued a practice note to the profession restricting the use of GenAI in drafting evidence without rigorous verification, according to Timothy Bourke, Deputy Chief Magistrate of Victoria, Australia.
While adoption of AI in courts is being driven by the goal of improving access to justice and addressing growing caseloads, each country has its own unique priorities and projects. For example, South Korea’s judiciary currently is focused on advancing AI tools for case management. “These include initial case analysis functions that can automatically extract key information from complaints or indictments, generate procedural checklists, predict timelines, and identify governing law,” said Judge Kwon, adding that there also is an AI tool for law clerks to conduct content analysis. This tool chronologically itemizes events from the arguments of both parties in a structured, tabular or visual format, and highlights repetitive content to help judges focus on what is truly in dispute.
Conversely, Australia’s guideline-driven approach has been external looking, said Deputy Chief Magistrate Bourke, noting that Australia’s AI use is geared more “towards external parties as compared to internally within the court. There are no current settings, as far as the court’s use of AI.”
Key recommendations for courts around the globe
As courts around the world explore the integration of AI into their judicial processes, several critical initiatives that have emerged to shape responsible and effective adoption, including:
Prioritizing transparency and accountability — Comprehensive frameworks must be established that prioritize transparency and accountability. Policymakers should develop detailed guidelines that address data privacy, bias mitigation, and clear boundaries for AI applications.
Promoting continuous learning — Continuous training programs should be established to help judicial officers and court staff understand AI capabilities and limitations while maintaining their critical oversight role in all AI-assisted workflows.
Conducting ongoing impact assessment — Focused investigation into AI’s judicial impact remains crucial, and special attention should be paid to significant challenges around accuracy, bias, and access to justice that require continued study and analysis.
Users of AI in courts need clear AI governance, opportunities for ongoing education, and an continuous evaluation of the use and performance of AI tools in order to ensure that AI best serves courts and the public.
You can find out more about the use of AI in courts here
