MalaysiaThe Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (Act 709) as amended in 2024 applies. JPDP issued Automated Decision-Making and Profiling, DPIA and Data Protection by Design guidelines in April 2026; the ADMP guideline's Part E governs AI and generative AI in profiling, requiring human oversight, barring sole-factor automated decisions and mandating staff training and appointed reviewers.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Malaysia
Substantialcommon lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
Malaysia regulates legal AI entirely through the profession, not the courts. The Malaysian Bar issued Circular 342/2023 on ChatGPT risks and Circular 242/2025 with an annexed generative-AI advisory; the judiciary has issued no practice direction, though Sabah and Sarawak have run AI-assisted sentencing since 2020. An AI Governance Bill was consulted on in mid-2026 but not introduced.
As of 2026-09-04, Malaysia has 1 binding rule, official guidance in 9 categories, 1 proposal and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover data protection and legal AI. In 8 categories we found nothing; in 1 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
Bar Council Circular 242/2025 requires all generative-AI output to be independently verified against traditional legal databases, and says that where verification is not possible the content must not be relied on. It is professional guidance, not a binding rule.
- Circular No. 242/2025: Updates on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice 2025-07-03
- Circular No. 342/2023: Risks and Precautions in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession 2023-11-24
- Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 with annexed advisory (official PDF)
- Bar Council — Circular No. 342/2023 (official PDF)
No federal guideline for judges. The Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak operates AI for Data Sentencing, launched 18 January 2020 and first used on 19 February 2020 at the Kota Kinabalu Magistrates' Court, on the stated basis that AI does not displace the role of judges.
Circular 242/2025 tells practitioners not to input personal data, NRIC or financial data or client-specific facts into generative-AI tools, to redact before use, not to disclose privileged material, and to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act 2010.
No amendment to the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 naming AI. Circular 242/2025 requires practitioners to understand a tool's capabilities and limits, read its terms of use, and train staff.
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.
No duty to tell clients about AI use in legal work. The only transparency requirement comes through data protection: JPDP's Automated Decision-Making and Profiling Guideline requires data subjects to be informed of AI use in automated decision-making and profiling through the privacy notice.
Two circulars. Circular 342/2023 (24 November 2023) on the risks and precautions of ChatGPT in the profession, and Circular 242/2025 (3 July 2025), which annexes an advisory setting out recommended and prohibited uses, a nine-risk mitigation table and a four-R framework.
- Circular No. 242/2025: Updates on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice 2025-07-03
- Circular No. 342/2023: Risks and Precautions in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession 2023-11-24
- Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)
- Bar Council — Circular No. 342/2023 (PDF)
Malaysia was an early adopter: the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's AI for Data Sentencing tool for drug and theft offences, built by SAINS, launched 18 January 2020. The Legal Affairs Division leads an AI Legal Justice Roadmap 2025-2026 involving seven agencies including the Chief Registrar's Office and the AIAC.
Circular 242/2025 tells firms to read terms of use to learn whether inputs are retained or used for training, to prefer legal-sector tools with privacy and regulatory controls, and to adopt internal policies. JPDP's ADMP guideline requires measures against over-reliance when developing, supplying or using AI systems.
The National AI Office and Ministry of Digital ran a public consultation on a proposed AI Governance Bill from 10 July to 1 August 2026, at pre-drafting stage; no bill has been introduced. Existing soft law: the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (MOSTI, 2024) and the National AI Action Plan 2026-2030. Justice uses are not separately risk-classified.
- Public Consultation: Proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Bill 2026-07-10
- National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE) 2024-09-01
- Unified Public Consultation — proposed AI Governance Bill (10 Jul to 1 Aug 2026)
- MOSTI — National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (official PDF)
No Malaysian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings. A site search of the Chief Registrar's judiciary portal for artificial intelligence, AI and kecerdasan returned no results as of 4 September 2026.
No Malaysian rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning or judgment drafting. The only official position is the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's statement, accompanying its sentencing tool, that AI does not displace the role of judges.
No Malaysian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found on the judiciary portal as of 4 September 2026.
No AI-specific or deepfake evidence rule. Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 on computer-produced documents is unamended for AI. Caution: the Attorney General's Chambers statute portal is JavaScript-driven and the section text could not be opened, so the statutory position is inferred rather than read.
No Malaysian rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work. Circular 242/2025 mentions automated billing only as an example of a task AI can perform.
No Malaysian decision sanctioning a lawyer for fabricated AI citations was found as of 4 September 2026; the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database (2,009 decisions across 41 jurisdictions, updated 3 September 2026) contains no Malaysian entry. Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid has warned publicly against AI over-reliance but issued no directive.
The AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026, i-Arbitration Rules 2026 and Asian Sports Arbitration Rules 2026 were full-text searched and contain no reference to artificial intelligence, generative AI or machine learning. The AIAC is a participating agency in the AI Legal Justice Roadmap.
No mandatory AI training or CPD requirement. Circular 242/2025 only encourages firms to conduct regular training on generative AI and its risks.
Circular 242/2025 names unauthorised practice of law as a generative-AI risk and says AI must not substitute for trained legal minds, but no official determination applying section 37 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to AI products was located.
Official documents recorded for Malaysia (5)
- Public Consultation: Proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Bill
NAIO · revised 2026-07-10 · verified 2026-09-04
- Guideline on Automated Decision-Making and Profiling (ADMP) under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010
JPDP · revised 2026-04-01 · verified 2026-09-04
- Circular No. 242/2025: Updates on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice
Malaysian Bar · revised 2025-07-03 · verified 2026-09-04
- National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE)
MOSTI · revised 2024-09-01 · verified 2026-09-04
- Circular No. 342/2023: Risks and Precautions in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession
Bar Council Malaysia · revised 2023-11-24 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Malaysia
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Malaysia" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/my (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.
- Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025, updates on the use of generative AI in legal practice (PDF)
- Bar Council Malaysia — Circular No. 342/2023, risks and precautions in using generative AI (PDF)
- Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak — AI for Data Sentencing
- JPDP — ADMP Guideline under the PDPA 2010 (PDF)
- Unified Public Consultation — proposed AI Governance Bill
- MOSTI — National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (PDF)