New judicial guidance has confirmed that judges are actively using artificial intelligence, according to a report published by the Law Society Gazette under the headline "Judges are plugged in to AI, new guidance reveals."

The disclosure arrives through newly issued guidance, which states that members of the judiciary have begun incorporating AI tools into their working practices. The guidance itself serves as the deciding document here: it is the official instrument acknowledging and regulating judicial engagement with AI systems.

What does the guidance signal?

For practitioners, the key takeaway is that AI use is no longer hypothetical at the judicial level. Guidance of this kind typically performs two functions: it acknowledges existing behaviour among judges, and it sets boundaries around how those tools may and may not be used in the course of judicial work.

The practical consequence for lawyers is straightforward. If judges are using AI tools, then the assumptions litigators make about how bench memos, research, summarisation and drafting support work may need revisiting. Practitioners should also expect that guidance of this type will shape disclosure, submissions and argumentation norms going forward — particularly where parties raise questions about how technology has touched any stage of proceedings.

Why does this matter now?

Judicial adoption of AI sits at the centre of a wider professional debate. Courts and regulators across jurisdictions have spent the past two years issuing practice directions, guidance notes and consultation papers on generative AI. Confirmation that judges themselves are "plugged in" marks a shift from abstract policy discussion to operational reality inside the courtroom.

For law firms, the development carries three immediate implications:

• Submissions may be read by judges who themselves rely on AI-assisted research tools.
• Professional conduct rules on AI use now apply on both sides of the bench.
• Challenges to AI-influenced processes, whether by courts or counsel, are likely to be judged by panels with firsthand familiarity with the technology.

What comes next?

Practitioners should monitor follow-up directions from the judicial office or committee responsible for the guidance. Experience with earlier technology-related practice notes suggests that initial guidance tends to be supplemented by more detailed protocols once usage patterns and risk areas become clearer.

(Note: the underlying report consists of a headline announcement; further procedural detail will follow as the full guidance text circulates.)