AI and Court Documents

On 1^st September 2026, new Practice Directions issued by the Presidents of the Irish High Court and Court of Appeal concerning the use of Generative AI (“GenAI”) in Court took effect.

The new practice directions seek to establish clear rules for the use of GenAI in civil proceedings, noting that, although technology can improve efficiency, it does not alter a practitioner’s nor indeed a lay litigant’s duties to the Court.

The Practice Direction applies to all documents prepared from 1^st September onward. Practitioners have always been responsible for the accuracy of the documents presented in Court.  However, in future, every AI-generated authority, citation, or “factual” claim must be independently verified against authoritative primary sources.  The Courts warn that using a second AI tool to fact-check the first is not an acceptable verification method.

Practitioners are also warned against entering confidential client information or privileged data into Public/Consumer grade AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok etc., which could waive legal privilege or breach privacy and GDPR obligations.  This includes processing documents subject to discovery, or court undertakings through GenAI tools, where there is a serious risk of individuals being identified or of exposing sensitive and confidential information.

Litigants in person (or lay litigants) are held to these same standards of candour and accuracy and the Practice Directions apply equally to them.  For guidance purposes, they are directed to consult the official Guidance for Non-Lawyers on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Court Proceeding.

The Courts have also emphasised the importance of this new change regarding witness statements proffered in evidence.  Affidavits and witness statements must now include a mandatory declaration confirming that AI was not used to generate, alter, or embellish substantive content, though basic administrative functions like spell-checking are permissible.  It remains to be seen whether this will be a new requirement for filing Affidavits, or if it is a matter to be raised when the evidence is presented in Court.

Expert witnesses are held to a similar standard.  They must either declare that AI was not used to form their substantive reasoning, or fully disclose the full extent of its use so the Court can properly weigh the evidence.  While pleadings and general submissions do not require any such declarations (unlike Affidavits) parties must disclose AI involvement if the Court requests it.

The Court of Appeal applies these standards across appellate filings, written submissions, Notices of Appeal, and Books of Appeal.  While appellate proceedings rarely hear fresh witness evidence, practitioners must ensure that all legal arguments, case summaries, and records from lower courts are accurately verified.

If an hallucinated case, citation, legal principle or factual error makes its way into a filed document, the responsible party must notify the Court and opposing counsel immediately and provide corrected documents.  Where a party identifies an AI issue in another party’s filing, they must initially draw it to their attention, to allow for self-correction, before bringing it to the Court’s attention.

Failure to comply with the Practice Directions can result in sanctions, including the striking out of claims, adverse costs orders (which may be also made against legal practitioners personally), and the referral of legal practitioners to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority.

Both Courts have noted that due to the rapidly evolving nature of GenAI, they will keep these Practice Directions under regular review and may update or amend them as necessary.  It remains to be seen what further protections or penalties the Irish Courts will enforce as AI-driven cases increase in Court.

. . . . . . . . . . .

(Image credit: Freepik)