Menu ▾
Start sealing, $349/mo Live demos For attorneys Standing orders Sanctions record Verify free Enterprise Pick what it does Why now Pick the problem Start where you stand The Drift Desk What is a standing order Sanctioned for AI citations Privilege and AI Detectors compared Authorship marks compared When the law changes The 124 laws The products Pricing The Regulayer Receipt HumanMark The free Sealer For insurers Support Open verifier About FAQ Legal

AI rules for lawyers, by country · Hong Kong SAR · Asia Pacific

Hong Kong: the judiciary’s guidelines

Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff · Hong Kong Judiciary · July 2024

Page verified 5 August 2026. We could not open the guidelines from this session, so everything below is recorded from contemporaneous reporting and official statements rather than quoted from the document. We say so rather than imply we read it.

Hong Kong drew the line early and drew it at the right place: AI may help a judge handle information, and may not help a judge decide. Rule 1 is that judicial functions are not delegated.

What the guidelines do

  • WhoJudges, judicial officers and support staff of the Judiciary.
  • Rule 1No delegation of judicial functions to AI. Judicial decisions are made independently, and AI must not be allowed to usurp or encroach upon judicial functions.
  • PermittedSummarising information, speech and presentation writing, legal translation, administrative tasks.
  • WhenJuly 2024, ahead of England and Wales’s second edition and well ahead of the practice directions in Qatar and Ontario.

The principle three jurisdictions reached separately

The same rule, in three legal systems with nothing in common:

  • Hong KongAI must not usurp or encroach upon judicial functions. July 2024.
  • CanadaThe Canadian Judicial Council: AI cannot supplant judges’ exclusive responsibility for decision-making. September 2024.
  • IndiaThe Kerala High Court: AI is prohibited from being used “to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgment”. July 2025.

A common-law SAR, a federal judicial council and an Indian High Court, arriving independently at an identical formulation within twelve months. That is the strongest evidence anywhere that the human-decision boundary is a settled principle rather than a policy preference.

The practitioner side

The July 2024 guidelines are addressed to the Judiciary, not to practitioners. Hong Kong established a Consultation Group on LawTech Development in January 2025, a policy initiative from the Chief Executive’s 2024 Policy Address, and has been reported as drafting AI guidelines for the legal sector. We record that as reported and will build it when there is a document to read.

What to do about it

Seven days free, then $349 a month. Or run it across the estate.

If a judge may not delegate the decision, neither may the lawyer who put the material in front of them. The test in both cases is whether a person can be identified who made the judgment, and whether that can be shown. The same engine either way: a signed record made on your own machine, content-free, and checkable free by anyone, forever.

Start the free weekOr Regulayer for enterprise →

See also the attorney certification, the free verifier, and every jurisdiction we track.

Sources

  • Hong Kong Judiciary, Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff, July 2024. Not opened from this session.
  • Recorded from City University of Hong Kong law library commentary and Debevoise & Plimpton analysis.
  • Canadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (September 2024).

Related

Checked 5 August 2026. Not read at source. Information, not legal advice.

Common questions

Can Hong Kong judges use generative AI?

Within limits set by the Judiciary's July 2024 Guidelines. The first rule is that there is no delegation of judicial functions to AI: judicial decisions must be made independently, and AI must not be allowed to usurp or encroach upon judicial functions. Permitted uses identified include summarising information, speech and presentation writing, legal translation and administrative tasks.

Are there rules for Hong Kong lawyers using AI?

The July 2024 Guidelines address judges, judicial officers and support staff rather than practitioners. Hong Kong established a Consultation Group on LawTech Development in January 2025, and has been reported as drafting AI guidelines for the legal sector. We record that as reported and not as in force.

What does 'no delegation of judicial functions' mean in practice?

That a judge may use AI to help handle information but not to decide. The same principle appears in the Canadian Judicial Council's guidelines, which state that AI cannot supplant judges' exclusive responsibility for decision-making, and in the Kerala High Court's policy, which prohibits AI being used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgment.

Information, not legal advice, and not advice on the law of any jurisdiction. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.