Hong Kong SARBoth instruments impose it as professional practice rather than rule: the Law Society's Circular 25-824 requires solicitors to verify AI-generated content, including citations, before use; the Judiciary's guidelines make judicial officers responsible for all output used and require verification of any permitted administrative use.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Hong Kong SAR
Developingcommon lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
Hong Kong regulates legal AI through soft law on three tracks: the Judiciary's July 2024 guidelines for judges and support staff, the Law Society's Circular 25-824 of December 2025, and a strong data-protection layer from the Privacy Commissioner (2021 guidance, a 2024 Model Framework and a 2025 employee checklist). There is no court practice direction and no AI statute.
As of 2026-09-04, Hong Kong SAR has 0 binding rules, official guidance in 8 categories, 0 proposals and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. In 3 categories we found nothing; in 8 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
Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff (July 2024) permit administrative and drafting-assistance uses with human review, forbid entering confidential or sensitive case material into public tools, and make the judicial officer responsible for all output used.
The Judiciary's guidelines state that using generative AI for legal analysis, research or reasoning in judicial work is not recommended, a discouragement rather than the outright prohibition used in New South Wales or Victoria. No rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning in terms.
Circular 25-824 requires client confidential information to be kept out of tools without safeguards. The PCPD's March 2025 employee checklist gives organisations, including firms, a template for what may be entered into which tools, and the Judiciary's guidelines bar confidential case material from public tools.
- Circular 25-824: Generative AI in Legal Practice: Risks and Tips 2025-12-01
- Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff 2024-07-01
- Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees 2025-03-31
- PCPD — Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (media statement, 31 Mar 2025)
No amendment to the Hong Kong Solicitors' Guide to Professional Conduct. Circular 25-824 tells solicitors to understand the tool and its data handling before adoption and cautions that output may be inaccurate or fabricated.
Circular 25-824, Generative AI in Legal Practice: Risks and Tips (December 2025), is the profession's principal instrument, covering verification, confidentiality and tool selection. No equivalent Hong Kong Bar Association guidance for barristers was located.
The strongest layer. PCPD published Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (2021), the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (11 June 2024) covering AI strategy and governance, risk assessment and human oversight, model customisation and stakeholder communication, and a Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (31 March 2025).
- Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework 2024-06-11
- Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees 2025-03-31
- Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence 2021-08-18
- PCPD — Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (official PDF, June 2024)
- PCPD — media statement on the Model Framework (11 June 2024)
- PCPD — media statement on the employee Gen AI checklist (31 Mar 2025)
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.
Two reported decisions, both against unrepresented parties and both ending without sanction: Yu Hon Tong Thomas v Centaline Property Agency (High Court, 26 February 2025) and Licksun Company Limited v Occupiers of Lot No. 552 (District Court, 8 August 2025), where six lodged authorities were found not to exist and the court held the lodging had the effect of misleading it.
No Hong Kong practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify generative-AI use in filings; the Judiciary's 2024 guidelines are addressed to judges and court staff, not litigants, and no AI entry appears in the courts' practice-direction index as of 4 September 2026.
No Hong Kong court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026, although both reported Hong Kong AI-citation cases involved unrepresented parties. In Licksun the plaintiff's list of authorities was said to have been prepared by a non-legally-trained employee.
No AI statute and no risk classification of justice uses. The Digital Policy Office's Hong Kong Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (April 2025, updated December 2025) is a voluntary cross-sector framework for developers and deployers and forms part of the Ethical AI Framework.
Not established. No Hong Kong evidence rule or judicial guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake material was located before the session search budget was exhausted.
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.
Not established. Neither Circular 25-824 nor the Digital Policy Office guideline was found to require solicitors to inform clients of AI use; the PCPD framework addresses transparency to data subjects, not to legal clients.
Not established. No Hong Kong ruling or guidance on charging for AI-assisted work was located before the search budget was exhausted.
Not established. The Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) restricts the provision of legal services, but no Hong Kong determination applying it to consumer AI legal products was located.
Not established. The Judiciary's guidelines govern individual use by judges and staff but no policy on the Judiciary's institutional AI deployment (transcription, translation, filing triage) was located.
Not established. No HKIAC or eBRAM generative-AI protocol or practice note was located before the search budget was exhausted.
Not established. No mandatory AI component in the Law Society's Continuing Professional Development scheme was located; the PCPD Model Framework recommends AI training for employees generally.
Official documents recorded for Hong Kong SAR (6)
- Hong Kong Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline
HK Digital Policy Office · revised 2025-12-01 · verified 2026-09-03
- Circular 25-824: Generative AI in Legal Practice: Risks and Tips
Law Society of Hong Kong · revised 2025-12-01 · verified 2026-09-03
- Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees
PCPD · revised 2025-03-31 · verified 2026-09-04
- Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff
Hong Kong Judiciary · revised 2024-07-01 · verified 2026-09-03
- Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework
PCPD · revised 2024-06-11 · verified 2026-09-04
- Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence
PCPD · revised 2021-08-18 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Hong Kong SAR
- No incidents in the tracker for this country yet.
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Hong Kong SAR" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/hk (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.
- Hong Kong Judiciary — Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff (PDF)
- Law Society of Hong Kong — Circular 25-824 (PDF)
- PCPD — Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (PDF)
- PCPD — Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (media statement)
- Digital Policy Office — HK Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (PDF)