Singapore - Generative AI Use in Courts (Registrar's Circular No. 1/2024)

Overview

The Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users (Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024) was issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court on 23 September 2024 and came into effect on 1 October 2024. It applies to the Supreme Court, the State Courts (including Small Claims Tribunals, Employment Claims Tribunals and Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals) and the Family Justice Courts. The Guide adopts a neutral stance towards Generative AI (GenAI): it does not prohibit its use, but frames mandatory obligations and practical safeguards that place responsibility for accuracy, confidentiality and compliance squarely on the Court User. The full text is published by the Singapore Judiciary; see Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024 (Supreme Court page) and the downloadable PDF at Registrar's Circular No. 1 2024 (PDF).

Definitions

The Guide defines key terms to remove ambiguity: "Artificial Intelligence" or "AI" is framed as technology capable of tasks that require intelligence (reasoning, problem solving, learning, planning) but excludes tools that merely correct spelling or grammar. "Generative AI" is explicitly described as software that generates content in response to prompts (text, images, video, audio) — typically using Large Language Models (LLMs). "Court Document" is broadly defined to include any material filed or submitted to Court (text, images, sounds, videos, data), including written submissions, pleadings and affidavits. "Court User" covers all participants in proceedings: lawyers, prosecutors, self-represented litigants and witnesses. These definitions underpin the Guide's scope and requirements.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The Guide sits within the judiciary's procedural governance architecture and does not itself create new legislative duties; instead it clarifies how existing professional, evidential and confidentiality rules apply when GenAI is used. Responsibility rests with Court Users and, for legal practitioners, with existing professional conduct obligations. The Registrar's Circular mechanism implements the Guide across courts; it complements Practice Directions and court rules rather than supersedes them. The Judiciary's pages publish the circular and related resources: Supreme Court Registrar's Circulars and court guides at Court Guides (Judiciary).

Key Focus Areas

The Guide emphasises several focus areas: accuracy and verification of AI outputs; protection of confidential, privileged and sensitive information; intellectual property compliance; evidential integrity; and professional accountability. It clarifies that GenAI tools can "hallucinate" (generate fabricated cases/quotes) and that outputs may be incomplete or outdated. Users must verify any AI-provided legal citations against authoritative repositories (the Guide explicitly cites the Singapore Courts judgments pages and Singapore Statutes Online) and cannot use GenAI to create evidence or tamper with evidentiary material. The Guide advises caution about public AI systems that may store prompts and outputs and warns about potential breaches of confidentiality and personal data protection laws. It also requires users to be able to identify AI-generated portions and to explain verification steps if the Court requests them.

Implementation Framework

Implementation is operationalised through the Registrar's Circular. The Guide becomes binding as court administrative guidance with the authority to inform orders and directions in proceedings. Court Users may use GenAI for drafting or research but must (i) assess suitability, (ii) fact-check and edit outputs, (iii) verify references against authoritative sources, and (iv) ensure compliance with IP, privilege and PDPA/confidentiality requirements. Where the Court has grounds to believe GenAI was used, a user may be asked to inform the Court, declare compliance with the Guide and may be required to file an affidavit. The Guide does not require pre-emptive disclosure of GenAI use unless the Court specifically asks.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The Guide provides for reactive monitoring by the Court in the course of proceedings: judges or registrars may require explanations, declarations or affidavits regarding AI use. The Court may assess whether documents comply with the Guide when considering costs, evidentiary weight or making procedural orders. The Guide also expects Court Users to self-monitor (e.g., using authoritative legal databases for verification) and to adopt practices that minimise risk (secure, enterprise-grade tools where confidentiality is required). As technology and legal practice evolve, the Judiciary can update Registrar's Circulars and Practice Directions to reflect lessons learned.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Enforcement leverages existing judicial and professional mechanisms: non-compliance may lead to orders for costs (including personal costs against counsel), disregard or reduced weight of documents, disciplinary action by the Law Society or other professional regulators, and actions under IP, personal data protection or contempt laws. The Guide explicitly lists potential consequences and ties liability to the responsible Court User (or lawyer) who filed the material. Appeals and remedies remain governed by statutory routes and existing practice directions; any contest about the Guide's application would proceed through ordinary appellate or disciplinary processes.

Relationship to Other Instruments

The Guide clarifies that it does not supersede statutes, rules of court, codes of conduct or existing Practice Directions. It cross-references and relies on existing authoritative legal sources — for verification this includes the Judiciary's judgments portal and Singapore Statutes Online. It complements sectoral and national AI governance initiatives but remains a court-specific administrative instrument that interfaces with professional regulation, data protection (PDPA), intellectual property law and contempt procedure.

International Alignment

While tailored to Singapore's courts, the Guide embodies widely-shared judicial concerns found in other common-law jurisdictions: the need for verification of AI outputs, protection of sensitive data, prohibition on fabricated evidence, and professional accountability. The Guide's neutral, risk-based posture aligns with international judicial approaches that permit tool use subject to verification and disclosure policies. It therefore supports interoperability with multinational practice (e.g., for cross-border litigation or the Singapore International Commercial Court) while preserving local procedural safeguards.

Implementation Timeline

Sources and References