In-Brief:
- Abu Dhabi Judicial Department’s (ADJD) Judicial AI Platform supports the analysis of certain cases, the recommendation of decisions and the preparation of draft judgments, while leaving the final decision to the relevant judicial authority member.
- The platform’s first phase focuses on the Public Prosecution and criminal courts, with further functions, including real-time translation, automated hearing records and tools to assist in detecting forged documents, planned for later phases.
- For litigants and practitioners, the key considerations are the accuracy of AI-assisted analysis, the verification of evidence and legal authorities, and the importance of effective human oversight and reliable records.
Introduction
The UAE’s commitment to modernising its judicial system is reflected in Abu Dhabi’s continued adoption of technology. Online hearings and digital court services have already changed how parties participate in proceedings, reducing the need to attend court in person. ADJD’s Judicial AI Platform marks a further step, extending the use of technology to support case analysis and the preparation of draft judgements.
AI is moving beyond its use by lawyers and businesses into the work of judicial authorities themselves. ADJD Judicial AI Platform brings that development into focus, raising practical questions about how AI may contribute to the analysis of cases and preparation of judgements.
AI tools are used in legal practice to review documents, analyse contracts, prepare chronologies and assist with legal research and routine correspondence. Their integration into judicial work takes that assistance closer to the process of determining a case.
1. Use of AI within Judicial Processes
On 28 September 2026, ADJD announced the launch of the first phase of its Judicial AI Platform, developed in cooperation with the Department of Government Enablement. Its Judicial Assistant supports members of the Public Prosecution and criminal courts in analysing certain types of cases, recommending decisions and preparing draft judgements with references to legislation and judicial precedents. The recommendations are non-binding, and the final decision remains with the relevant judicial authority member.
The launch forms part of an 18-month development programme. Later phases are intended to include integration with criminal and civil systems, real-time translation, automated hearing records and tools to assist in detecting forged documents. Over time, these developments are intended to support wider integration across relevant ADJD systems, including those dealing with criminal and civil matters.
2. AI-Assisted Decision Making
Judicial decision-making involves more than processing information. It requires the identification of the issues in dispute, the assessment of evidence and competing arguments, the interpretation of applicable legal principles and the application of those principles to the circumstances of the case.
AI may assist with navigating extensive documents and complex information. However, generating a proposed analysis or draft judgement does not give the tool responsibility for determining the dispute. Human oversight must address the substance of its reasoning, including whether it has considered material evidence and applied the relevant law correctly.
Outputs can be affected by the information provided, the instructions or prompts entered and the system’s capabilities and limitations. An incomplete record or a prompt that assumes a disputed fact may therefore produce an incomplete or misleading analysis. Effective use of these tools requires carefully framed questions and professional judgement to identify answers that overlook or misinterpret a material issue.
3. Evidence and Document Authenticity
AI tools proposed for later phases could flag documents that may have been forged. For instance, a tool might identify a suspected alteration in a scanned agreement, drawing attention to a signature, date or contractual term that requires closer examination. This could help focus the parties’ and the court’s attention on a potential evidential issue at an earlier stage.
A warning would not, by itself, establish that the document is forged. A court-appointed expert may still be needed to examine the original or electronic file, investigate the suspected alteration and explain the findings to the court. Those findings would then need to be considered alongside the other evidence in the case. AI screening could therefore support the examination of disputed documents, while leaving technical assessment to the expert and the ultimate evaluation of the evidence to the court.
4. Litigation Strategy
Practitioners should verify whether a client’s chronology, summary or other supporting material was prepared using AI. It may help explain the client’s position, but it should be checked against the underlying documents and instructions before being used in advice, pleadings or submissions. Legal authorities identified through AI tools should likewise be checked for accuracy, relevance and current status.
Clients and businesses can facilitate case preparation by maintaining complete records of agreements, communications and commercial decisions before a dispute arises. These records provide the foundation for assessing the dispute and checking any supporting analysis produced by AI.
Conclusion
ADJD’s Judicial AI Platform brings AI into substantive judicial work, including case analysis, recommendations and draft judgements, while retaining human responsibility for the final decision. As its use develops, the value will depend on accurate outputs, effective review and clear safeguards. For litigants and lawyers, careful preparation and the ability to check how an analysis was reached remain central to presenting and responding to a case.
Should you have any questions about this article or require any assistance in relation to how the use of AI may assist in resolving a current or potential dispute, please contact Salih Ahnaish at s.ahnaish@hadefpartners.com, or your usual Hadef & Partners contact.
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek independent legal counsel in relation to their specific circumstances.