Must lawyers disclose AI use in court filings?

Australia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Court-ordered or automatic disclosure in most jurisdictions. NSW SC Gen 23 requires affidavits and witness statements to state that Gen AI was not used; GPN-AI and Victoria's SC GEN 25 let the court direct a party to disclose or identify AI-produced parts; Queensland's PD 5 of 2025 requires a named responsible person on every submission.

• Practice Note SC Gen 23: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Practice Note: Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)
• Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence (PD-AI)
• Practice Note SC GEN 25: The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users
• Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions
• NCAT Procedural Direction 7: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)
• Procedural Direction PIC13: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• NSW Supreme Court — Practice Note SC Gen 23 (official PDF)
• Supreme Court of Queensland — Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (official PDF)
• Federal Court of Australia — GPN-AI

Canada

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

The Federal Court requires a declaration in the first paragraph of any document containing AI-generated content (notice of 20 Dec 2023, updated 7 May 2024). Manitoba King's Bench and the Supreme Court of Yukon require materials to state how AI was used. Ontario requires certification of the authenticity of every authority cited in a factum.

• Notice to the Parties and the Profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings
• Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions
• Practice Direction GENERAL-29: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
• Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4.06.1(2.1) and (2.2): Certification of authenticity of authorities (O. Reg. 384/24)

Ireland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Practice Direction HC 142 (signed 29 Jul 2026, in operation 1 Sep 2026) requires affidavits and witness statements to carry a declaration that generative AI was not used to generate substantive content, and expert reports either a no-substantive-use declaration or disclosure of AI use. The Court of Appeal in Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (26 Mar 2026) had already set out five principles including disclosure of AI use.

• Practice Direction HC 142: Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents
• Courts Service — Practice Direction HC 142 (official)

Philippines

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC makes AI-use disclosure mandatory for judges and court staff preparing court-issued adjudicatory documents: tool and version, purpose, extent of use, degree of human oversight, preservation of the output, and a responsibility statement. Court users' submissions are within scope but there is no separate lawyer certification rule yet.

• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary
• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, Governance Framework (SC E-Library full text)

Qatar

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

QICDRC Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (in force 6 Jan 2026) allows the court to require disclosure of how AI was used in preparing documents in QFC court proceedings. No onshore rule.

• Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 and Practice Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
• QICDRC — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (official)

United States

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No judiciary-wide rule. Binding only where an individual judge has issued a standing order: Judge Starr (N.D. Tex.) requires a signed certificate, Judges Fuentes (N.D. Ill.), Baylson (E.D. Pa.), Graham (S.D. Ohio) and Berger (M.D. Fla.) require disclosure or certification. The Fifth Circuit rejected a circuit-wide certification rule in June 2024.

• Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Brantley Starr)
• Standing Order for Civil Cases (generative AI provision), Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes
• Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson
• Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge James L. Graham)
• Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W. Berger)
• Proposed amendment to Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3 and Form 6 (generative AI certification)
• Policy Memorandum 25-40: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings

International bodies

International bodies · verified 2026-09-04

No international court requires AI certification in filings. Arbitration soft law addresses disclosure: SVAMC Guideline 3 makes disclosure case-by-case; the Ciarb Guideline art. 7 lets tribunals impose continuing disclosure duties; CEPEJ(2025)18 requires transparency where judicial generative-AI use affects proceedings.

• Guidelines on the use of generative AI by courts and tribunals (CEPEJ(2025)18Final)
• SVAMC Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (First Edition)
• Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025)
• SVAMC Guidelines (PDF)
• Ciarb Guideline, updated September 2025 (PDF)

Israel

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule requires parties to certify AI use. Bar opinion At/60/24 requires a lawyer to tell the court where material was processed solely by AI or where AI-derived information could not be verified. Procedure 01-26 requires disclosure of the courts' own AI use, not parties'.

• Preliminary Opinion on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Lawyers' Work, decision At/60/24
• Ethical Code for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Judicial Authority (Courts Administration Procedure No. 01-26)
• Israel Bar National Ethics Committee, opinion At/60/24 (official page)

United Arab Emirates

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

DIFC Courts Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 (21 Dec 2023) requires parties to declare at the earliest possible opportunity that they have used or intend to use AI-generated content. No onshore federal, Dubai or Abu Dhabi court rule.

• DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)

Ecuador

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

The Ethics Committee protocol, approved 16 June 2026 and awaiting a Judiciary Council resolution, requires every procedural document to declare when and how AI was used. It binds judicial actors such as judges, prosecutors, defenders and staff rather than private lawyers, and is not yet in force.

• Protocol for the use of artificial intelligence in the Judicial Function (Ethics Committee)
• El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol

India

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026, issued by the Supreme Court AI Committee on 3 June 2026, would require lawyers and parties to declare AI use in pleadings; comments closed 15 July 2026 and the text is not notified. No Indian court currently mandates declaration.

• Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026
• Supreme Court draft AI regulations (official PDF)
• Medianama on Justice Prathiba Singh's remarks

Kenya

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

The Judiciary's draft AI Policy and draft Practice Directions, released for public participation in May 2026, would require any AI-assisted filing to carry a certificate of human verification and would require advocates to disclose use of mid-tier tools such as legal research platforms. Not in force; not published on judiciary.go.ke.

• Draft Judiciary Artificial Intelligence Policy and draft Practice Directions on AI use in courts
• High Court of Kenya rulings on AI-generated pleadings: Savla v Commission on Administrative Justice and the April 2026 set-aside
• Judiciary to introduce AI policy amid concerns of bot-generated filings (Daily Nation)
• Judiciary moves to regulate AI use in courtrooms (Techweez, 15 May 2026)

United Kingdom

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule in force. The Civil Justice Council consulted from 17 Feb to 14 Apr 2026 and its 30 June 2026 interim findings reported consensus against an AI-specific requirement for professional drafting; the final report is pending. Contrast Ireland, which introduced a declaration requirement by practice direction on 1 Sep 2026.

• Consultation: The Use of AI for the Preparation of Court Documents
• The Use of AI for the Preparation of Court Documents: Update on Consultation Findings

Afghanistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Albania

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Algeria

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Argentina

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No national or provincial court rule requiring parties to disclose AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026. Rio Negro's October 2025 acordada makes its good-practice protocol mandatory for lawyers but is framed around verification and responsible use, not certification.

• Acordada 15/2024 and October 2025 extension: Protocol of Good Practice for Generative AI in the Judiciary of Rio Negro

Armenia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Austria

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Austrian court rule or Erlass requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.

Azerbaijan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Bahrain

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Bahraini court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings.

Bangladesh

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belarus

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belgium

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Belgian court rule or practice direction requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.

Bolivia

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Botswana

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Brazil

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule requires parties or lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. CNJ Resolution 615/2025 binds courts, not litigants, and OAB Recommendation 001/2024 requires notice to the client rather than to the court.

• Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary
• Recomendacao no 001/2024: Responsible Use of Generative AI in Legal Practice

Brunei

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Bulgaria

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cambodia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Cameroon

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Chile

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule or auto acordado requires parties to disclose AI use in filings. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

China

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Colombia

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule requires litigants or lawyers to disclose AI use in filings. Judges must disclose AI use in decisions under Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 10, but that is a judicial duty rather than a filing rule.

• Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243: Guidelines for the respectful, responsible, safe and ethical use of AI in the Judicial Branch

Costa Rica

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Côte d'Ivoire

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Croatia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cuba

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Cyprus

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Denmark

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Danish court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in pleadings as of 4 September 2026; the Administration of Justice Act [retsplejeloven] is silent.

Dominican Republic

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Egypt

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Egyptian court rule or Court of Cassation direction requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was located.

El Salvador

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Estonia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Estonian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Code of Civil Procedure is silent and the courts portal publishes no AI direction as of 4 September 2026.

• Kohus.ee

Ethiopia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

European Union

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No EU-level rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in court filings; the CJEU Rules of Procedure are silent and filing rules remain national. AI Act Art. 50(4) deployer disclosure targets deepfakes and public-interest text, not pleadings.

Finland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Finnish court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings; the Code of Judicial Procedure [oikeudenkäymiskaari] is silent and Tuomioistuinvirasto publishes no party-facing AI direction as of 4 September 2026.

• Tuomioistuinvirasto

France

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule, decree or practice direction requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Administrative courts have criticised undisclosed AI use in submissions but imposed no disclosure obligation.

Georgia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Germany

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No ZPO/StPO rule, court rule or reported standing order requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Courts have criticised undeclared AI use but imposed no disclosure duty.

Ghana

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Greece

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Guatemala

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Honduras

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Hong Kong SAR

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No Hong Kong practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify generative-AI use in filings; the Judiciary's 2024 guidelines are addressed to judges and court staff, not litigants, and no AI entry appears in the courts' practice-direction index as of 4 September 2026.

• Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff
• Hong Kong Judiciary — practice directions index

Iceland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Icelandic court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Judicial Administration publishes no AI material as of 4 September 2026.

• Dómstólasýslan

Indonesia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No Indonesian rule requires disclosure of AI use in court filings; no PERMA or SEMA imposes AI certification. PERADI's 2026 guideline speaks of transparency to clients but sets no filing-level disclosure duty.

• Guideline on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Indonesian Advocates [Pedoman Penggunaan Kecerdasan Buatan]
• PERADI — announcement of the AI guideline for advocates (6 Aug 2026)

Iran

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Iraq

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Italy

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Disclosure duties under Law 132/2025 article 13 run to the client, not the court. A Rome Bar operational guideline of February 2026 was reported in the press but could not be opened.

• Law 23 September 2025 no. 132 on artificial intelligence (Legge 132/2025)

Jamaica

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Japan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule or practice direction requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Jordan

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Kazakhstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kuwait

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kyrgyzstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Laos

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Latvia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Latvian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Civil Procedure Law is silent and neither Tiesu administrācija nor the Supreme Court publishes an AI direction as of 4 September 2026.

• Tiesu administrācija

Lebanon

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Lithuania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Lithuanian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Code of Civil Procedure is silent and the courts portal publishes no AI direction as of 4 September 2026.

• Teismai.lt

Luxembourg

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Luxembourg court rule or practice direction on AI disclosure in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Macao

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Malaysia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

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.

• Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court — site search (no results)

Malta

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mauritius

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Mexico

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in Mexican court filings found as of 4 September 2026, at federal level or in the state judiciaries examined.

Moldova

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mongolia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Montenegro

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Morocco

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mozambique

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Myanmar

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Namibia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Nepal

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Netherlands

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No landelijk procesreglement, court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. The Rechtspraak AI strategy commits to developing 'visies, reglementen, afspraken' with the NOvA for handling AI in case material, but nothing is published.

• Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)

New Zealand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Deliberately absent. The December 2023 court guidelines impose no obligation to declare generative-AI use in filings, and the judicial guidelines state that judges themselves need not disclose chatbot use. Judges are instead told it may be appropriate to ask a lay litigant whether they used a chatbot and what checks they made.

• Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and Tribunals
• Courts of New Zealand — Guidelines for use of generative AI, judicial version (official PDF)

Nicaragua

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Nigeria

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No Nigerian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use. The Supreme Court's 2026 practice directions (effective 1 Jul 2026) mandate electronic upload of processes only and are silent on AI.

North Macedonia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Norway

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

The Supreme Court's guidance imposes verification duties but does not require parties to disclose or certify AI use in pleadings; no Norwegian court rule does so as of 4 September 2026.

• Veiledning for advokater, July 2026 (PDF)

Oman

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Pakistan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Panama

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Paraguay

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Peru

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Poland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Polish court rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in pleadings; the Code of Civil Procedure [k.p.c.] is silent as of 4 September 2026.

Portugal

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule requires parties or lawyers to disclose AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026; the CSM declaration duty applies to judges' decisions only.

• CSM Recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial activity (Recomendacoes no uso de IA)

Puerto Rico

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No District of Puerto Rico or Puerto Rico court AI disclosure/certification rule found; federal cases follow U.S. federal court rules.

• U.S. Courts: court role and structure

Russia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Rwanda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Saudi Arabia

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or circular requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Senegal

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Serbia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Singapore

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Deliberately no declaration requirement. Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024 (issued 23 September 2024, effective 1 October 2024, mirrored by the State Courts and Family Justice Courts) says court users need not pre-emptively declare generative-AI use, but must answer if the court asks and remain fully responsible for the content filed.

• Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024: Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users
• Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (official PDF)

Slovenia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

South Africa

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice directive or uniform rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Courts have addressed fabricated citations case by case under existing costs and contempt powers.

South Korea

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule. The judges' Judicial AI Research Group guideline of February 2025, which is not official court policy, proposed that courts may require parties to disclose AI use, tools and prompts for submitted documents.

• Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary (Judicial AI Research Group)
• Legal Times on the research group guideline

Spain

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No procedural rule requires parties to disclose AI use in filings. CGAE Circular 3/2026 recommends only internal traceability. Courts have instead used article 247 of the civil procedure law on procedural bad faith after the fact.

• CGAE Interpretive Circular 3/2026: use of generative AI systems and the duty of verification
• CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)

Sri Lanka

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Sweden

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Swedish court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026; the Code of Judicial Procedure [rättegångsbalken] is silent and Domstolsverket has issued no party-facing direction.

Switzerland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Swiss federal or cantonal court rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.

Taiwan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No court rule. A May 2026 Judicial Weekly article by a High Court judge notes that Taiwan still lacks rules for external users such as lawyers and recommends a dual-track disclosure duty.

• Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (official PDF)

Tanzania

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Trinidad and Tobago

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Tunisia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Türkiye

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, court rule or Ministry circular requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings. The TBB Guide tells lawyers to comply where a court, arbitrator, mediator or administrative body does require a declaration, but creates no standing duty.

• Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers [Avukatlar İçin Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı Tavsiye Rehberi]
• TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)

Uganda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Ukraine

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uruguay

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uzbekistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Venezuela

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.

Zambia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Zimbabwe

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.

Czechia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not verified. No Czech court rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was encountered, but the civil and constitutional procedure rules could not be checked without search access.

Hungary

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Romania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Slovakia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — no Slovak court rule requiring parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings could be checked without search access. The Supreme Court in 4CdoNa/3/2026 inferred AI use rather than requiring its declaration.

Thailand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice filing-disclosure rule was found on reachable pages; the Office of the Judiciary site could not be opened.

• Courts of Justice of Thailand

Vietnam

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. No filing-disclosure rule was located; the Supreme People's Court's own site (toaan.gov.vn) was unreachable from this environment.