Must legal AI vendors pass procurement due diligence?

Austria

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The strictest in this group. Under § 40(3) RL-BA the AI provider must sign an undertaking before use; the ÖRAK publishes a checklist the provider must confirm: § 9(2) RAO confidentiality, a § 40(3) RL-BA agreement, an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement, an absolute ban on using firm input to train models, secure deletion on termination, EU or adequacy-decision hosting (e.g. Switzerland, UK), equivalent compliance by sub-processors, and immediate notification if the provider or a sub-processor is searched by police. The notification duty falls away only for sub-processors that store data briefly and process it fully automatically without human access (§ 40(3)(4) RL-BA).

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien — Leitfaden und Checkliste für KI-Dienstleister
• ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §§2–3 and Checkliste für KI-Anbieter (official PDF)

Brazil

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

For courts only: CNJ Resolution 615/2025 sets requirements for developing and contracting AI solutions, covering governance, transparency, data security and a preference for the judiciary's own platform. There is no vendor due-diligence guidance for law firms.

• Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary
• CNJ Resolucao 615/2025

China

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The Supreme People's Court Opinions require judicial AI products to be lawfully developed, examined by authoritative bodies, and to disclose their capabilities and limitations. This applies to courts' own systems rather than to law firms.

• Opinions on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Field
• China Justice Observer bilingual text

Colombia

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 articles 6, 8(2) and 11 require suitability analysis before use, avoidance of tools whose training data and processing are opaque, privacy impact assessments and contractual data-protection safeguards for institutional AI solutions.

• Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243: Guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe and ethical use of AI in the Judicial Branch
• Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)

Finland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

B 05.1 point 6 requires business-grade licences and point 14 requires supplier contracts to carry confidentiality, access-scoping and data-destruction terms. B 05.2 adds that where a cloud or AI service offers a version separating a customer's data from other users' data, that version must be adopted.

• B 05.1 Data Security Guideline [Tietoturvaohje]
• B 05.2 Data Security Manual [Tietoturvaopas], Annex 5 'AI guide for the advocate' [Tekoälyopas asianajajalle]
• B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)
• B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas (PDF)

Germany

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

§ 43e BRAO is the strictest vendor rule in this group: careful selection, a contract at least in text form containing the minimum content in § 43e(3) nos. 1–3 (confidentiality undertaking with warning of criminal consequences, purpose limitation), immediate termination if the safeguards fail, need-to-know access, and comparable secrecy protection for providers outside Germany (§ 43e(4)). Art. 28 GDPR applies alongside (§ 43e(8)).

• Hinweise zum Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI)
• Orientierungshilfe: Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz
• § 43e BRAO (gesetze-im-internet.de, official)
• BRAK KI-Leitfaden §3.2 (official PDF)

India

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Regional. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies permit only tools approved by the High Court and treat public AI platforms as unapproved for case material. The draft Supreme Court regulations would centralise vetting through AI committees and CoRE-AI. No vendor due-diligence guidance exists for law firms.

• Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary
• Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial and Court Administration
• Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026
• Gujarat High Court AI policy (official PDF)

Italy

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

For courts, Ministry of Justice authorisation is required before AI systems are trialled or used in judicial offices under Law 132/2025 article 15(3). For lawyers, only the CCBE guides circulated through the National Bar Council apply; there is no Italian vendor due-diligence rule.

• Law 23 September 2025 no. 132 on artificial intelligence (Legge 132/2025)
• CCBE Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers
• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• Legge 132/2025 (official)

Nepal

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

ICT Policy clause 5.2.2: third-party AI systems used in judicial work must be assessed for reliability, transparency, freedom from bias and algorithmic processes before adoption.

• Judiciary Information and Communication Technology Policy, 2083 (2026)
• Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (official PDF)

Philippines

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Unusually strong. Vendors and third-party contractors are expressly within the Framework's scope; developers must disclose a tool's logic, limitations and safeguards, trade-secret claims limiting disclosure must be justified, and the AI Committee supervises procurement and may require ethical impact assessments, adversarial red-teaming and bug-bounty testing.

• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary
• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)

Slovakia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Guidance Art. 6 sets cumulative minimums for mode (c): a GDPR Art. 28 DPA, contractual confidentiality down the sub-processor chain, an explicit no-training guarantee, sub-processor transparency, encryption in transit and at rest, MFA, EEA-preferred data location with a valid transfer mechanism, and retention/deletion policies. Enterprise versions strongly recommended; beta versions barred for protected data.

• Rules on the use of AI tools in advocacy practice (SAK Presidium Resolution 12/4/2025, as amended by 21/14/2025)
• SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)

Spain

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Judges may use only AI systems provided by the competent public administrations for judicial work under Instruccion 2/2026 article 9. For lawyers, the Madrid Bar guide covers vendor selection, including no-training clauses, EU data residency and article 28 GDPR processor agreements, as guidance.

• CGPJ Instruction 2/2026 on the use of AI systems in judicial activity (Instruccion 2/2026)
• ICAM Guide of Good Practice for the use of AI in the legal profession (Guia ICAM IA 2025)
• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)
• ICAM AI guide page (official)

Australia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The Law Society of NSW guide tells firms to select tools with appropriate data protections; QLS publishes an AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies for firms assessing third-party AI vendors; OAIC guidance requires due diligence before deploying a commercial AI product.

• A Solicitor's Guide to Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence
• Guidance Statement No. 37: Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice
• Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products
• QLS — new AI checklist for legal practitioners
• OAIC — guidance on commercially available AI products

Bahrain

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

Not legal-sector specific. The iGA policy's second pillar requires government entities to consider AI in projects and procurements, to adopt AI only in coordination with the iGA, to follow iGA standards for launching AI initiatives, and to run regular audits of AI use.

• General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence, Version 1.0
• iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF, section 6.2.2)

Belgium

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

OVB/Avocats.be §1.1: before use, the lawyer must read the tool's terms, with attention to conditions on training, transfer and storage of data, further processing by the platform, localisation of processing, the open or closed character of the system, the platform's liability terms, and IP and licence conditions.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• Richtlijnen voor advocaten voor het gebruik van Artificiële Intelligentie (OVB/Avocats.be guidelines on AI for lawyers)
• OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §1.1 (official PDF)

Canada

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

Law society guidance requires licensees to understand a tool before use, assess whether it protects confidentiality and privilege, and remain accountable for vendor conduct (LSO white paper, LSA rules of engagement). The Superior Court of Quebec framework applies equivalent duties to court-procured tools.

• White Paper: Licensee Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Gen AI Rules of Engagement for Canadian Lawyers

Croatia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The Croatian Bar republished the CCBE Technical Guide on selecting and hosting AI tools in March 2026; there is no Croatian rule.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• HOK post on the CCBE technical guide (official bar site)

Denmark

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Danske Advokater's second December 2024 guide is a procurement checklist for firms buying AI, covering confidentiality, IP rights, GDPR, ESG and the conduct rules.

• To nye AI-vejledninger til advokatbranchen (AI Act guidance and AI procurement guidance)
• Danske Advokater — two new AI guides

Estonia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The Bar's guide requires advocates to verify a system's security before entering sensitive client data and to avoid free public AI services whose terms allow inputs to be reused. No sector procurement rule exists.

• AI guide for advocates [Tehisaru juhend advokaatidele]
• Eesti Advokatuur — AI guide for advocates

European Union

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

CCBE guide asks lawyers to check tool terms, data location and training-data use before adoption. AI Act value-chain duties (Art. 25, GPAI documentation under the Code of Practice) shape what vendors must disclose, but there is no legal-sector procurement rule.

• CCBE Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers
• General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
• Guidelines on the scope of obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models
• Opinion 28/2024 on certain data protection aspects related to the processing of personal data in the context of AI models
• Commission GPAI provider guidelines

France

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The CNB published a 'grille de sélection des outils d'IA' alongside the 2024 practical guide, scoring data sovereignty, security, functionality, ethical compliance and cost. The Ministry of Justice states a preference for solutions hosted on national territory.

• Guide pratique — Utilisation des systèmes d'intelligence artificielle générative
• L'IA au service de la justice : stratégie et solutions opérationnelles
• CNB — AI guidance and tool-selection grid (official)

Hong Kong SAR

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The PCPD Model Framework's Part I is explicitly about governance considerations for procuring AI solutions, and Part II about risk assessment and the level of human oversight; the Digital Policy Office guideline adds a technical framework for deployers. Neither is legal-sector specific.

• Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework
• Hong Kong Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline
• PCPD — Model Personal Data Protection Framework, Parts I-II (PDF)

International bodies

International bodies · verified 2026-09-04

The CEPEJ Assessment Tool gives court decision-makers criteria for evaluating AI tools against the Ethical Charter; the 2025 UNESCO Guidelines recommend procurement standards with risk and rights-impact review; the SCC and VIAC tell participants to do due diligence; AAA-ICDR asks arbitrators to select tools with robust data security.

• Assessment Tool for the operationalisation of the European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems (CEPEJ(2023)16)
• UNESCO Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals
• SCC Guide to the use of artificial intelligence in cases administered under the SCC Rules
• VIAC Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings
• AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators' Use of AI Tools
• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• CEPEJ Assessment Tool rev. 2025 (PDF)
• UNESCO Guidelines (UNESDOC)

Ireland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Law Society guidance v4 addresses safeguards required before client information enters a tool; no dedicated Irish vendor due-diligence rule found.

• Use of Generative AI: Guidance for the Legal Profession
• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

Israel

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No procurement rule for firms. At/60/24 directs lawyers towards closed AI systems for internal use to reduce exposure to unauthorised access; Procedure 01-26 confines judicial case data to internal systems. Both are tool-selection principles rather than vendor due-diligence frameworks.

• Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24
• Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26)
• Draft Guidelines on the Application of the Privacy Protection Law to Artificial Intelligence Systems
• Pearl Cohen summary of At/60/24

Luxembourg

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Luxembourg rule; the CCBE technical guide on AI tools and models for lawyers (27 Mar 2026) is the reference for deployment-model and vendor assessment.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

Malaysia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Circular 242/2025 tells firms to read terms of use to learn whether inputs are retained or used for training, to prefer legal-sector tools with privacy and regulatory controls, and to adopt internal policies. JPDP's ADMP guideline requires measures against over-reliance when developing, supplying or using AI systems.

• Circular No. 242/2025: Updates on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice
• Guideline on Automated Decision-Making and Profiling (ADMP) under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010
• Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)
• JPDP — ADMP Guideline (PDF)

Netherlands

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

NOvA Vertrouwelijkheid 4 and Deskundigheid 4: check contract terms on data ownership, IP rights, liability, exit clauses and vendor lock-in; do not rely on FAQs or marketing promises but read the (privacy) terms; agree quality and safeguards with the supplier in advance; document which services process personal data.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur
• NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)

New Zealand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Thin. The Law Society guidance requires privacy and privilege to be protected in anything entered into a tool, and the Privacy Commissioner expects a privacy assessment before adoption and endorses no vendor. There is no legal-sector vendor due-diligence framework.

• Generative AI guidance for lawyers
• Artificial Intelligence and the Information Privacy Principles
• OPC — does the OPC approve or endorse AI providers? (knowledge base)

Nigeria

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.6.1 set criteria for selecting AI tools and s.10.2 addresses contractual agreements with developers; lawyers are told to establish data-protection agreements and confirm vendor compliance with applicable privacy regimes.

• Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession in Nigeria
• Nigeria Data Protection Act General Application and Implementation Directive (GAID) 2025 — Articles 43 and 44 (Emerging Technologies)
• NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)

Norway

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Datatilsynet sandbox reports give practical due-diligence material for AI deployments; Advokatforeningen guidance covers tool choice for firms. No legal-sector procurement rule.

• Datatilsynet — AI sandbox

Poland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

KIRP Recommendations 1–11 are a procurement checklist: purpose, what data enters the tool, which contract applies, supplier confidentiality commitments, IP and indemnity terms, GDPR role assessment, security measures, integration and fine-tuning. Recommendation 22 covers incident management.

• AI w pracy radcy prawnego — Rekomendacje dotyczące korzystania przez radców prawnych z narzędzi opartych na sztucznej inteligencji
• KIRP — AI recommendations (PDF)

Portugal

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

CSM Recommendation 9: AI systems used by judges must embed security, access control, traceability and no-reuse measures, and systems supplied or validated by the CSM are presumed compliant. There is no vendor guidance for lawyers beyond the CCBE technical guide.

• CSM Recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial activity (Recomendacoes no uso de IA)
• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• CSM Recommendations (official PDF)

Singapore

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The MinLaw guide asks practices to adopt AI governance policies and assess tools before deployment; the Law Society advisory warns against tools that may retain or train on client information; the PDPC advisory guidelines address obligations when procuring AI systems that process personal data.

• Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector
• Advisory on the Use of Publicly Available AI Tools
• Advisory Guidelines on Use of Personal Data in AI Recommendation and Decision Systems
• PDPC — Advisory Guidelines on use of personal data in AI systems (PDF)

Sweden

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Bar guidance sets a vendor checklist: whether the supplier reserves rights over input/output data, whether prompts and client data train the model or reach other users, who is liable for output, and what is disclosed about training data. Lawyers may need IT or cyber-security expertise to assess terms.

• Vägledning om användning av generativ AI i advokatverksamhet
• Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning (PDF), ss. 5–11
• IMY — GDPR och AI

Switzerland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

SAV Wegleitung §2.1 requires clarifying, before selecting any software, what happens to input data, who has access and where it is stored (including intermediate storage), and cross-refers to the separate SAV-Wegleitung für IT-Outsourcing und Cloud-Computing for provider arrangements.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)
• SAV-Wegleitung für den Umgang mit künstlicher Intelligenz
• SAV — IT-Outsourcing und Cloud-Computing (official)

Taiwan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The Judicial Yuan guidelines of 2026 require risk management in system deployment, and the 2023 drafting system was built on-premises to keep case data local. AI Basic Act article 19 requires government risk assessment before AI use.

• Reference Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by the Judicial Yuan and Subordinate Agencies
• Artificial Intelligence Basic Act (Taiwan)
• AI Basic Act (official)

Türkiye

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

The TBB Guide sets a vendor criteria table: legal data-set provenance and currency, data location and cross-border transfer basis, a contractual undertaking that prompts and documents are not used for model training, encryption, access control, MFA, logging, penetration testing, breach notification, transparency on error rates, and a written data-processor agreement.

• Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers [Avukatlar İçin Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı Tavsiye Rehberi]
• Generative AI and the Protection of Personal Data Guide, in 15 Questions (Üretken Yapay Zekâ ve Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Rehberi)
• TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)

United Kingdom

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

SRA compliance tips address due diligence on technology suppliers; BSB guidance requires barristers to assess whether a tool is suitable for confidential work.

• Compliance tips for solicitors on the use of AI and technology
• Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies

United States

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

The AO's July 2025 interim guidance addresses procurement and security of AI tools for courts. For executive-branch legal offices, OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (3 Apr 2025) required each agency to adopt a generative-AI acceptable-use policy with safeguards by about 29 December 2025.

• Interim guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in the federal judiciary
• US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025 (official)

South Africa

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

Resolution 5.3 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference requires the Judiciary to retain ownership and governance over the development, procurement and use of AI systems, and that training data reflect South Africa's constitutional values. No rule applies to law firms.

• 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, Section 5 — Information Communication Technology, Digitisation and Artificial Intelligence
• Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary in South Africa
• 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.3

Afghanistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Albania

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Algeria

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Argentina

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Armenia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Azerbaijan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Bangladesh

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belarus

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Bolivia

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Botswana

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Brunei

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Bulgaria

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cambodia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Cameroon

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Chile

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Costa Rica

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Côte d'Ivoire

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Cuba

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Cyprus

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

Dominican Republic

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Ecuador

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Egypt

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence requirement was located.

El Salvador

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Ethiopia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Georgia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Ghana

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Greece

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor guidance found; Law 4961/2022 public-sector AI procurement duties apply to courts as public bodies.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

Guatemala

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Honduras

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Iceland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.

Iran

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Iraq

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Jamaica

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Japan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Jordan

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Kazakhstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

Trusted lists, documentation and audits for high-risk AI systems exist under the AI Law, but no legal-sector procurement or vendor due-diligence rule was located.

• Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII
• Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted

Kenya

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Kuwait

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kyrgyzstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Laos

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Latvia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools (security, training data, residency) found as of 4 September 2026.

Lebanon

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Lithuania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools (security, training data, residency) published as of 4 September 2026.

Macao

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Malta

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

Mauritius

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Mexico

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on due diligence for legal AI procurement found as of 4 September 2026.

Moldova

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mongolia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Montenegro

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Morocco

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mozambique

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Myanmar

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Namibia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Nicaragua

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

North Macedonia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Oman

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Pakistan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Panama

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Paraguay

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Peru

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Puerto Rico

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Qatar

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on procuring and contracting legal AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.

Russia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Rwanda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Saudi Arabia

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor due-diligence rule. SDAIA's AI Adoption Framework addresses governance and responsible-use enablers generally.

Senegal

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Serbia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Slovenia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

• CCBE Technical guide on the use of AI tools and models by lawyers (Edition 2026)

South Korea

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No law-firm vendor guidance. The judiciary builds in-house, procuring its sentencing AI publicly rather than licensing external large language models.

• Newspim

Sri Lanka

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Tanzania

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Trinidad and Tobago

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Tunisia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Uganda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Ukraine

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

United Arab Emirates

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector vendor due-diligence rule. DIFC Regulation 10 imposes audit and certification duties on entities deploying AI to process personal data, recorded under data-protection.

Uruguay

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uzbekistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Venezuela

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Zambia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Zimbabwe

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.

Czechia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The draft ČAK AI Strategy is reported to include minimum IT standards for lawyers and legal-tech developers, but the text was not public and could not be verified as of 4 September 2026.

Hungary

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Indonesia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor-vetting rules were identified for courts or firms. Komdigi's 2023 circular addresses AI developers and operators generally but not legal-sector procurement.

Romania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Thailand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. No Thai legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance was located.

Vietnam

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. The sovereign-AI framing implies a preference for in-house and state systems, but no procurement instrument was located.