Singapore introduces AI court rules

The guide (7-page / 90.3KB PDF) targets generative AI - software that generates content typically based on prompts provided by users in the form of text, images, video or audio – and requires all court participants who use generative AI to comply.

The main purpose of the guide is to ensure that all output is accurate, relevant and does not infringe any intellectual property rights. While it prevents generative AI tools being used to generate or alter evidence, it does allow for generative AI tools to produce first drafts of witness statements if required.

According to the guide, courts will maintain a “neutral stance” on the use of generative AI tools but will hold court users responsible for the output generated. Courts will not require court users to declare when generative AI tools have been used. However, court users should be prepared to provide an affidavit stating that the guide was complied with if required by the court. Court users must also be prepared to answer questions relating to the accuracy of the output.

Not complying with the guide can lead to sanctions including costs, disregard of the evidence submitted and, if the court user is a lawyer, disciplinary action.

The guide brings Singapore in line with other jurisdictions which have issued similar guidelines, including the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. Despite similarities – regarding court users’ responsibility for output and prohibitions on AI tools being used to alter or generate evidence - the courts’ guidance does vary across jurisdictions, particularly in the approach to court users’ obligations to disclose the use of AI, which AI tools they can and cannot use and the sanctions applied.

To raise awareness and harmonise best practices worldwide, UNESCO has published draft guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals. It has also developed a global online course as part of its AI and the Rule of Law programme

To date, most arbitration institutions’ rules have not yet addressed the use of generative AI in arbitration proceedings although this may be changing. A task force formed by the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center recently published guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration (22-page / 704KB PDF) following a period of public consultation. Last month, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) issued guidelines on the use of AI for cases administered by SCC (3-page / 54KB PDF).

“It remains to be seen if other arbitral institutions will also issue guidelines, or amend their rules, to reflect the use of AI in arbitral proceedings and the need for regulation,” said international arbitration expert Johanne Brocas of Pinsent Masons.