ColombiaAcuerdo PCSJA24-12243 of 16 December 2024 applies to all judges and employees: no free or commercial chatbots, no AI for evidence assessment or deciding, human verification of every output, and express disclosure in the file of tool, model, date, purpose and prompts. It was issued to comply with judgment T-323/2024.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Americas
Colombia
Substantialcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Colombia is the region's leading case-law jurisdiction: Constitutional Court judgment T-323/2024 set criteria for judges' use of ChatGPT and ordered guidelines; the Superior Council of the Judiciary's Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 binds judges to verify and disclose AI use; the Supreme Court and Council of State have fined lawyers and annulled a judgment.
As of 2026-09-04, Colombia has 7 binding rules, official guidance in 0 categories, 1 proposal and 2 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, client data in AI tools, courts' own AI deployment, data protection and legal AI, mandatory AI training, vendor due diligence. In 10 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
Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 8(3)-(4): judges must not use AI to assess evidence, scrutinise facts, make value judgments or resolve legal problems, nor motivate or adopt decisions based solely on AI answers. Judgment T-323/2024 held that AI cannot substitute the judge's reasoning.
- Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243: Guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe and ethical use of AI in the Judicial Branch 2024-12-16
- Sentencia T-323 de 2024: due process and judges' use of generative AI (ChatGPT) 2024-08-02
- STC17832-2025: annulment of a judgment based on non-existent jurisprudential citations 2025-11-05
- Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)
- Sentencia T-323/2024
Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 8(6) forbids entering personal, sensitive or confidential data into AI tools that retain, share or retrain on inputs. No bar guidance for lawyers on client data in AI tools was found.
Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 chapter 3 governs institutional AI projects: suitability analysis, no personal data in training, privacy impact assessments, reporting through the Digital Transformation Unit and monitoring. The judiciary deploys transcription and summarisation tools.
Circular Externa 002 of 21 August 2024 sets binding guidelines for processing personal data in AI systems, covering suitability, necessity, reasonableness and proportionality, risk identification and privacy by design. It is not legal-sector specific.
Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 13 requires the Rodrigo Lara Bonilla Judicial School to run an AI training plan, and the November 2025 Supreme Court ruling ordered the School to disseminate the decision. There is no mandatory continuing education for lawyers.
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.
Bill 043/2025 in the Senate proposed a national AI supervisory authority and risk tiers but was archived at the end of the legislature; the government re-filed substantially the same text as bill 025/2026 in August 2026.
The Supreme Court's civil cassation chamber fined a lawyer 15 minimum monthly wages for a review petition citing ten non-existent rulings generated by AI, and the Council of State held in June 2026 that all AI output must be humanly verified and lawyers remain fully responsible. For judges, Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 9 is binding.
- STC17832-2025: annulment of a judgment based on non-existent jurisprudential citations 2025-11-05
- Council of State, Third Section: parameters for AI use in proceedings and disciplinary referral 2026-06-09
- Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243: Guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe and ethical use of AI in the Judicial Branch 2024-12-16
- Supreme Court fine (El Tiempo)
- Council of State rules (Infobae)
The Supreme Court annulled a Sincelejo tribunal ruling built on non-existent citations as a due-process violation on 5 November 2025 and fined a lawyer 15 minimum monthly wages; the Council of State referred a lawyer to the Bogota sectional commission of judicial discipline in June 2026.
No rule requires litigants or lawyers to disclose AI use in filings. Judges must disclose AI use in decisions under Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 10, but that is a judicial duty rather than a filing rule.
No court guidance for self-represented parties on AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 bars judges from using AI to assess evidence, which is a different question.
No competence rule naming AI for lawyers; Colombia has no unified bar association. Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 7 imposes prior-knowledge duties on judicial staff only.
No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted work in law firms 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.
Colombia has no mandatory bar; no practitioner-facing generative-AI guidance from the Ministry of Justice or the National Commission of Judicial Discipline was found as of 4 September 2026.
No Colombian arbitral institution AI rules found as of 4 September 2026.
Official documents recorded for Colombia (5)
- Council of State, Third Section: parameters for AI use in proceedings and disciplinary referral
Consejo de Estado · revised 2026-06-09 · verified 2026-09-04
- STC17832-2025: annulment of a judgment based on non-existent jurisprudential citations
CSJ Sala Civil · revised 2025-11-05 · verified 2026-09-04
- Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243: Guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe and ethical use of AI in the Judicial Branch
CSJ · revised 2024-12-16 · verified 2026-09-04
- Circular Externa 002 de 2024: Guidelines on the processing of personal data in AI systems
SIC · revised 2024-08-21 · verified 2026-09-04
- Sentencia T-323 de 2024: due process and judges' use of generative AI (ChatGPT)
Corte Constitucional · revised 2024-08-02 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Colombia
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Colombia" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/co (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.