This paper responds to the question of whether judgements generated by judges using ChatGPT can be directly adopted. It posits that it is unjust for judges to rely on and directly adopt ChatGPT-generated judgements based on virtue jurisprudence theory. This paper innovatively applies case-based empirical analysis and is the first to use virtue jurisprudence approach to analyse the question and support its argument. The first section reveals the use of generative AI-based tools in judicial practice and the existence of erroneous (...) judgements generated by ChatGPT through empirical research. The second section contends that generative AI, while mimicking virtuous behaviour, cannot produce justified beliefs according to virtue jurisprudence theory. Moreover, using AI as a decision-making entity could undermine the protection of human rights and interests. The paper concludes by suggesting normative and technical approaches for how judges should use generative AI-based tools to develop their virtues. (shrink)