ChileThe Judicial Ethics Code, Acta 244-2025, approved at the October 2025 reflection sessions and published on 19 November 2025, article 17: AI is a support tool only; judges must verify any AI result, control data shared with external platforms, and never automatically incorporate AI text. The Code is expressly ethical, not disciplinary.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Americas
Chile
Developingcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Chile regulates judges through article 17 of the Supreme Court's first Judicial Ethics Code, published 19 November 2025, which keeps decisions human and requires verification of AI output. Lawyers are policed by the courts' disciplinary power: the Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations in April 2026.
As of 2026-09-04, Chile has 0 binding rules, official guidance in 3 categories, 1 proposal and 3 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. In 13 categories we found nothing; in 0 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
Acta 244-2025 article 17: judicial decisions are always human and non-delegable; judges may not delegate evidence assessment or resolution of the dispute to AI, and transcription and translation tools are preliminary support only, to be reviewed and certified by a person.
The judiciary launched a unified jurisprudence search engine with AI on 8 July 2025 and runs pilots in Antofagasta, the Supreme Court's third chamber and Mulchen. Article 17 of the ethics code requires human review and certification of automated transcription and translation. No standalone deployment policy was found.
Bill 16821-19, introduced by executive message and merged with an earlier bill, regulates AI systems by risk tiers and creates a Technical Advisory Council. It was approved by the Chamber of Deputies and has been in the Senate's Future Challenges Committee since October 2025.
Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025 of 22 April 2026 imposed a one-month suspension and a 5 UTM fine for AI-fabricated doctrinal citations under articles 531 and 542 of the Organic Code of Courts; the second civil court of Concepcion fined a lawyer 1 UTM in February 2026. For judges, article 17 of the ethics code requires independent verification.
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.
Courts use their disciplinary power under article 531 of the Organic Code of Courts, and article 542 for the Supreme Court: Rol 23.322-2025 suspended a lawyer for one month and fined 5 UTM on 22 April 2026, and the second civil court of Concepcion fined 1 UTM in February 2026.
No court rule or auto acordado requires parties to disclose AI use in filings. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No court guidance for self-represented parties found as of 4 September 2026.
No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.
No bar guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 4 September 2026; article 17 of the ethics code addresses judges' data only.
No competence rule naming AI for lawyers found as of 4 September 2026.
No requirement to inform clients of AI use found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.
No generative-AI guidance from the Chilean Bar Association, membership of which is voluntary, found as of 4 September 2026.
No AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026; the new personal data protection agency created by Ley 21.719 is not yet operative.
No AI rules from CAM Santiago or other Chilean ADR bodies found as of 4 September 2026.
No mandatory AI training for judges or lawyers found as of 4 September 2026.
No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Official documents recorded for Chile (3)
- Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025: suspension and fine for AI-fabricated doctrinal citations
Corte Suprema · revised 2026-04-22 · verified 2026-09-04
- Acta 244-2025: Judicial Ethics Code (article 17 on responsible use of technology and AI)
Corte Suprema · revised 2025-11-19 · verified 2026-09-04
- Bill regulating artificial intelligence systems (Boletin 16821-19, merged with 15869-19)
Congreso · revised 2025-10-24 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Chile
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Chile" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cl (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.