IsraelCourts Administration Procedure 01-26, 'Ethical Code for Using AI Tools in the Judicial Authority', issued by Director Tzachi Uziel on 26 Mar 2026, drafted by a team under Judge Rami Khaimowitz and approved by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit. Applies to judges, registrars and court staff; conditions use on training.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Middle East
Israel
Substantialmixedupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Israel regulates legal AI through professional and judicial instruments, not statute. The Israel Bar's National Ethics Committee opinion At/60/24 (2024) governs lawyers; the Courts Administration's binding Ethical Code for Using AI Tools in the Judicial Authority (Procedure 01-26, 26 Mar 2026) governs judges and staff. Supreme Court decisions supply the sanctions position.
As of 2026-09-04, Israel has 3 binding rules, official guidance in 9 categories, 0 proposals and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, courts' own AI deployment. In 7 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
Procedure 01-26 states AI is an aid not intended to replace the human element in the court system, and does not diminish judges' and staff members' discretion or responsibility. Automated administrative or registry actions affecting litigants' rights must carry a route of objection.
Procedure 01-26 sets principles, operative instructions and control mechanisms for the judiciary's own AI, requires that use be visible to the public with tailored disclosure rules, and bars non-internal tools for case data. Deployments: AI courtroom transcription from the 2025-26 legal year and 'Chat HaMishpat' (Gemini-based) for roughly 1,650 judges and legal assistants.
No court rule requires parties to certify AI use. Bar opinion At/60/24 requires a lawyer to tell the court where material was processed solely by AI or where AI-derived information could not be verified. Procedure 01-26 requires disclosure of the courts' own AI use, not parties'.
- Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24 2024-05-07
- Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26) 2026-03-26
- Israel Bar National Ethics Committee, opinion At/60/24 (official page)
At/60/24 requires lawyers to check AI output individually and corroborate it against external authority. Procedure 01-26 binds judges and staff to verify every factual finding, quotation, statutory and case-law reference against authoritative sources. Supreme Court decisions since Feb 2025 have made the duty enforceable through costs.
- Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24 2024-05-07
- Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26) 2026-03-26
- Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)
- CTech, courts AI ethics code and verification requirement (20 Apr 2026)
At/60/24 bars entering client personal, confidential, privileged or copyright-protected material into AI platforms and prefers closed in-house systems. Procedure 01-26 prohibits entering material from Net HaMishpat case files into AI tools that are not internal to the judiciary.
- Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24 2024-05-07
- Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26) 2026-03-26
- Draft Guidelines on the Application of the Privacy Protection Law to Artificial Intelligence Systems 2025-04-30
- Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)
- Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26
At/60/24 expects lawyers to use AI carefully, keep up to date with the strengths and weaknesses of these technologies and understand how the platforms work, and states that the lawyer bears full civil and ethical responsibility for their use. No amendment to the professional conduct rules yet.
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.
At/60/24 requires explicit written client consent before a client's personal information is entered into open AI systems, specifying the document types involved and the security measures applied. Israel's strictest AI consent requirement, and stricter than most bar guidance worldwide.
Opinion At/60/24, the first Israeli bar instrument on generative AI, published 2024 by the National Ethics Committee. In March 2025 Bar president Amit Bechar directed the drafting of detailed permitted/prohibited AI rules; those detailed rules had not been published as of 4 September 2026.
Privacy Protection Authority draft guidance on the application of the Privacy Protection Law to AI systems published 30 Apr 2025 (comments to 5 Jun 2025) and still in draft; a Privacy-Enhancing Technologies guide followed in late 2025. Amendment 13 to the Privacy Protection Law took effect in August 2025.
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 2024-05-07
- Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26) 2026-03-26
- Draft Guidelines on the Application of the Privacy Protection Law to Artificial Intelligence Systems 2025-04-30
- Pearl Cohen summary of At/60/24
Courts use costs and professional censure. Supreme Court, Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Feb 2025: petition dismissed where counsel cited 36 non-existent or misquoted judgments. Followed by the Ramat Gan, Adibi and Haifa Labour Court sanctions. No dedicated sanctions rule exists.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Procedure 01-26 is expressly limited to judges and court staff and does not address litigants or lawyers.
No evidence rule or judicial guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026. A Haifa District Court refusal of a partly AI-produced summary of medical records is described in secondary commentary but was not verifiable against a docket.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 on charging clients for AI-assisted time or AI tool costs. At/60/24 does not address billing.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 on consumer-facing AI legal products and the advocacy monopoly under the Bar Association Law 1961.
No horizontal AI statute or risk-classification law. Policy only: the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology / Ministry of Justice AI regulation and ethics policy (Dec 2023) favours sector-specific regulation, and Government Resolution 4255 of 16 Jun 2026 approved a national AI plan focused on compute, talent and standards rather than a justice-sector risk tier.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Israeli arbitral institution has issued AI guidance; Israeli practice discussion refers to the SVAMC Guidelines (30 Apr 2024) rather than a domestic instrument.
No mandatory AI training requirement for Israeli lawyers found as of 4 September 2026. On the judicial side Procedure 01-26 conditions use of AI tools on appropriate prior training, but that obligation is internal to the judiciary.
Official documents recorded for Israel (3)
- Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26)
Israel Courts Administration · revised 2026-03-26 · verified 2026-09-04
- Draft Guidelines on the Application of the Privacy Protection Law to Artificial Intelligence Systems
Israel Privacy Protection Authority · revised 2025-04-30 · verified 2026-09-04
- Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24
Israel Bar National Ethics Committee · revised 2024-05-07 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Israel
- Adibi v. AIG Israel Insurance Co.2026-08-23 Sanctions
- Yunes v. M.A. Asli Marketing2026-08-17 Sanctions
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan & Ministry of Education2026-03-22 Costs order
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Israel" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/il (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.
- Israel Bar National Ethics Committee, opinion At/60/24 on AI in lawyers' work
- Opinion At/60/24, PDF hosted on gov.il
- Rashut HaRabim journal citing Courts Administration Procedure 01-26 (26 Mar 2026)
- CTech on the Courts Administration AI ethics code (20 Apr 2026)
- Globes on the judiciary's AI ethics task force
- Privacy Protection Authority draft AI guidelines (30 Apr 2025)