The Supreme People's Court has successively issued online litigation rules, online mediation rules, online operation rules, and opinions on strengthening the judicial application of blockchain and regulating and strengthening the judicial application of artificial intelligence. Its theoretical innovation and practical exploration have attracted global attention. While fully affirming the significant positive role of smart justice, it is also necessary to pay attention to and prevent the potential risks posed by digital technology in achieving judicial fairness, and to integrate risk management with the implementation of judicial responsibilities of judges, which is also the essence of smart justice. Currently, the intelligent judicial model that utilizes digital technology tools such as networks, big data, cloud computing, 5G, artificial intelligence, and blockchain to assist in the judiciary is deepening. The Supreme People's Court has successively issued online litigation rules, online mediation rules, online operation rules, and opinions on strengthening the judicial application of blockchain and regulating and strengthening the judicial application of artificial intelligence. Its theoretical innovation and practical exploration have attracted global attention. This is an important content and manifestation of the modernization of the trial system and trial capacity of the people's courts, and it is also a major issue related to achieving digital justice in the new era. While fully affirming the significant positive role of smart justice, it is also necessary to pay attention to and prevent the potential risks posed by digital technology in achieving judicial fairness, and to integrate risk management with the implementation of judicial responsibilities of judges, which is also the essence of smart justice. 1、 The profound impact of smart justice on the judicial responsibility system of judges mainly includes three aspects in the application scenarios of smart justice: first, in terms of case management, including the collection and storage of case information, judicial services and management supervision, etc., providing data support for subsequent data analysis and judicial decision-making required for case handling, and also providing more convenient services for judge justice and party litigation; The second aspect is online litigation, including remote synchronous online litigation and asynchronous online litigation on virtual trial platforms, as well as online evidence exchange and online mediation; The third aspect is in terms of judicial decision-making, including the review and recognition of blockchain evidence, case retrieval, case push, legal regulation inquiry and research, intelligent generation of legal documents, etc. It also includes data analysis through historical data, relevant factors of the case, etc., in order to predict trial results and assess post judgment risks, and substantially assist judges in judicial decision-making. As a new judicial model, smart justice can effectively improve the quality and efficiency of justice, promote the unity of judicial standards, automatically warn and prevent non-standard judicial behavior, strengthen the efficiency of trial supervision and management, and further highlight the judicial service function of people's courts. At the same time, smart justice is increasingly covering many fields and links of trial execution work, which will inevitably have a significant and profound impact on the judicial responsibility system of judges. One is the continuous expansion of the traditional judicial field by smart justice, which expands the scope of judicial responsibility for judges. Especially in the fields of information technology judicial application, online litigation, artificial intelligence judicial application, etc., it has become an important and extensive new field for the judicial responsibility of judges. Secondly, the increasingly widespread and in-depth application of digital technology, especially artificial intelligence, in smart justice has increased the risk of judicial responsibility for judges. Regarding the correct application of network information technology, whether there are omissions in protecting the litigation rights of parties in online litigation, and the impact on