The Giving Of Reasons: Judgement Writing, Judicial Reasoning, and GenAI

This article focuses on the core judicial role of giving reasons for a judge’s decision and the use of generative artificial intelligence (‘GenAI’) tools based on LLMs in the crafting of judgments. Considering specifically GenAI and judgment writing in common law systems, it deals with the connection between the act of decision-making and the giving of reasons for that decision. Our argument is that judgment writing should remain the domain of human judges, for reasons that are both institutional (the impact on the judicial system) and individual or processual (the impact on judges performing their roles). We seek to analyse the nature and extent of judicial use of GenAI tools that preserves this as a human domain. Ultimately, we conclude that it is not appropriate to use GenAI for judgment writing, but peripheral or adjacent uses may be supportable, provided they do not undercut the core judicial role.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bond Law Review
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.171946
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

The Giving Of Reasons: Judgement Writing, Judicial Reasoning, and GenAI

Michael Legg, Felicity Bell
Bond Law Review
Artificial Intelligence in Law
article

The Giving Of Reasons: Judgement Writing, Judicial Reasoning, and GenAI

Michael Legg, Felicity Bell
article en

Abstract

This article focuses on the core judicial role of giving reasons for a judge’s decision and the use of generative artificial intelligence (‘GenAI’) tools based on LLMs in the crafting of judgments. Considering specifically GenAI and judgment writing in common law systems, it deals with the connection between the act of decision-making and the giving of reasons for that decision. Our argument is that judgment writing should remain the domain of human judges, for reasons that are both institutional (the impact on the judicial system) and individual or processual (the impact on judges performing their roles). We seek to analyse the nature and extent of judicial use of GenAI tools that preserves this as a human domain. Ultimately, we conclude that it is not appropriate to use GenAI for judgment writing, but peripheral or adjacent uses may be supportable, provided they do not undercut the core judicial role.

Bond Law ReviewVol. 38((2))
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Artificial Intelligence in Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.