Regulation Tracker · 20 questions
Duties on partners, supervisors and compliance officers over how staff use AI.
As of 2026-09-04, 4 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for supervision of AI work, 25 have official guidance, 0 have a proposal, 3 are set by case law, 92 were checked with nothing found and 6 remain unclear. Binding countries: Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, Spain.
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Framework provides that a lawyer shall not evade responsibility by claiming that a violation or breach was the fault of, or caused by, an AI tool. CPRA Canon II, Sections 34 to 35 on supervising paralegals and non-delegable legal tasks apply by analogy.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The ethics code amendment states that use of technological tools does not release the advocate from personal responsibility for the form and content of professional activities. KIRP recommendations stress maintaining human oversight over technology use.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Guidance Art. 3(4): the lawyer is responsible for demonstrable training of trainee lawyers [koncipienti] and employees on AI risks and on the Resolution's rules. Art. 9 requires adequate internal AI rules and recommends an approved/prohibited tool list and an AI-use register recording tool, mode and human verification.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Circular 3/2026 treats insufficient control of the delegated task as the core failing: the signing lawyer answers for AI-assisted work by staff or tools, and the tool's failure evidences a breach of the duty of supervision.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Principals must supervise employees' AI use and set firm policies (QLS GS 37; Law Society of NSW guide; joint regulator statement). NSW judicial guidelines cl 8 require associates, tipstaves and researchers to disclose Gen AI use to the judge and to verify output separately.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
ÖRAK Leitfaden §4 requires a binding internal directive setting which AI applications may be used and for what, what data may never be entered (never mandate-related or personal), which use cases are strictly forbidden, and a named person responsible for selecting, reviewing and approving new AI tools — plus a defined process for human review of every AI output.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No dedicated supervision rule. The guidelines state the lawyer 'blijft steeds eindverantwoordelijke voor de output van de AI die hij gebruikt' and that all liability principles continue to apply.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Sao Paulo Bar Ethics and Discipline Tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that partners and managers must ensure AI use by associates, contractors, trainees and non-lawyer staff is supervised and must review all AI output before it is filed.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Law Society of Ontario white paper (Apr 2024) makes licensees responsible for all work product regardless of AI assistance and addresses supervision of staff and delegated work; Alberta's guidance keeps accountability with the lawyer, not the tool.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Danske Advokater guidance addresses firm-level implementation controls before deploying AI; no binding supervision rule specific to AI-assisted work.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Bar's guide is addressed to advocates and law-office staff, placing responsibility for responsible AI use across the office on the advocate. No binding supervision rule specific to AI-assisted work found.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CCBE guide recommends firm-level policies, training and human oversight of AI-assisted work; AI Act Art. 14 human-oversight duties bite only on high-risk systems (deferred to 2 Dec 2027 for Annex III). No EU supervision rule for law firms.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
B 05.2 Annex 5 point 7 requires access rights to be scoped so AI does not surface material beyond its intended audience, and point 9 requires logging and monitoring of AI use, assigned to persons with sufficient competence, because models drift and fabricate.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No French rule on supervising AI-assisted work by staff or stagiaires. The CNB guide keeps final intellectual control and responsibility with the signing lawyer; the Conseil d'État charter tells staff they cannot 'se défausser sur l'IA' for content they adopt.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No express supervision rule for AI-assisted work. BRAK derives it from the Kanzleipflicht (§ 5 BORA) plus Art. 4 AI Act: firms should issue written internal instructions ('Handlungsanweisungen') and train staff. Heightened care applies where AI faces the client (chatbots, auto-responders, intake) — BRAK §2.2, citing OLG Hamm 'Scheidung Online'.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
PERADI's guideline provides that firms remain obliged to give trainee advocates adequate mentoring, training and learning opportunities, and that AI must not replace the mentorship of junior advocates.
International bodies · verified 2026-09-04
Only indirect guidance: the CCBE recommends firm-level AI policies; the IBA and CAIDP report urges ethics rules covering proper supervision and use of AI tools; Ciarb 8.3 tells arbitrators to keep AI output under appropriate supervision. No supervisory duty is framed as a rule.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No dedicated supervision rule. The Law Society guidance puts responsibility on firms to set the AI literacy and control framework for staff; PD HC 142 makes the person signing the document responsible for verification.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No supervision-specific rule for law firms. At/60/24 places full and non-delegable responsibility on the individual lawyer. Procedure 01-26 establishes control mechanisms over AI use by judicial and administrative staff and conditions use on prior training.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Circular 242/2025 requires all generative-AI output to be subject to human oversight, legal judgment and ethical consideration, and asks firms to keep clear records of professional oversight and final review for audit purposes.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
NOvA Onafhankelijkheid 3: 'Zorg voor toezicht op medewerkers en leveranciers, stel AI-beleid op en implementeer een controle cyclus.' Integriteit 2 requires a firm-wide AI policy. No binding supervision rule.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The judicial side is explicit: clerks, research counsel and support staff must discuss with their supervising judge how they are using generative AI and what steps they take to mitigate risk. The Law Society guidance addresses firm-level responsibility for output but there is no dedicated supervision rule.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.7.1 make lawyers responsible for subordinates' work and require supervision of junior lawyers and staff using generative AI.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Advokatforeningen guidance places final responsibility on the lawyer even where AI is used as a tool; no separate binding supervision rule for AI-assisted work.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Bar guidance s.5 applies the principal's duty under VRGA 7.6.2: a lawyer must take reasonable steps to ensure staff meet good practice when using GenAI, and firms should adopt, publish and regularly update policies on which tools may be used and how output is fact-checked.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
SAV Wegleitung §1: firms 'sollten für den Gebrauch von KI-Systemen eine interne Weisung erlassen und die Regeln diesbezüglich festlegen'. No binding supervision rule.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
The TBB Guide recommends every law office adopt a written AI policy fixing approved tools, data types that may never be entered, authorisation levels, human review and verification processes, incident-reporting and breach procedures, plus office-wide staff training.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
SRA effective-supervision guidance gained AI sections in June 2026; the warning notice names COLP duties.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3: managerial and supervisory lawyers must establish policies for AI use by lawyers, non-lawyer staff and AI vendors.
No countries in this status.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
In the Concepcion case of February 2026 the lawyer admitted an associate had drafted the brief with AI and that it was filed with minimal review; the court treated the failure of review as a breach of procedural good faith. There is no rule or guidance.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Tribunale di Firenze (14 March 2025) accepted that a trainee had used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge but still censured the signing lawyer's failure to verify; TAR Lombardia in October 2025 referred a lawyer to the Milan bar for discipline. There is no express supervision rule.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Singapore has the leading supervision-chain authority. In Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49 (6 March 2026) S Mohan J made S$5,000 personal costs orders against both the counsel on record and the supervising solicitor who reviewed the draft, rejecting a workload-and-supervision defence. The MinLaw guide requires human-in-the-loop review of high-risk tasks.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule or guidance on supervision of AI-assisted work within firms found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted work in law firms found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No duty on supervising principals or firms over AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No duty on supervising advocates or law offices over AI-assisted work by assistants or staff found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No duty on supervising advocates or law offices over AI-assisted work by trainee advocates [advokatų padėjėjai] or staff found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Luxembourg supervision rule for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule or guidance on supervision of AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted work by staff found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No supervision duty naming AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No supervision duty naming AI found as of 4 September 2026. FJL v TGO exposed a gap for acting judges, who remain practising advocates answerable to the LPC rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No supervision rule naming AI. In Arabyads the ADGM Court made the wasted-costs order against the law firm rather than the individual lawyer, but decided the point under existing conduct rules.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no Czech rule on supervising AI-assisted work by trainees [koncipienti] or staff could be checked without search access.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not established for the profession. The Judiciary's guidelines cover support staff, and the PCPD checklist asks organisations to define which categories of employee may use which tools, but no legal-sector supervision rule or guidance was located.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not substantiated. No Thai supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Supervision of AI work" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/supervision (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Philippines
Poland
Slovakia
Spain
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
Estonia
European Union
Finland
France
Germany
Indonesia
International bodies
Ireland
Israel
Malaysia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Sweden
Switzerland
Türkiye
United Kingdom
United States
Chile
Italy
Singapore
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Iceland
India
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Malta
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Nicaragua
North Macedonia
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Czechia
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Romania
Thailand
Vietnam