Do self-represented litigants get AI-specific court guidance?
Court guidance addressed to self-represented litigants on using AI to prepare their cases.
As of 2026-09-04, 6 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for self-represented litigants, 2 have official guidance, 1 have a proposal, 4 are set by case law, 110 were checked with nothing found and 7 remain unclear. Binding countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Philippines, Singapore, United States.
Binding ruleOfficial guidanceProposed / consultationSet by case lawNothing foundNot yet determined
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Practice notes bind self-represented litigants directly (NSW SC Gen 23, NSW Local Court, NCAT PD 7, GPN-AI, PD-AI). Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia also publish plain-language guidelines for non-lawyers. Queensland PD 5 of 2025 warns of adjournment and adverse costs for fake citations.
Court directions expressly bind self-represented litigants: Federal Court, Manitoba King's Bench, Yukon, Saskatchewan GA-PD #12 and Ontario's factum certification all apply to parties without counsel. The Provincial Court of British Columbia published plain-language guidance for litigants on 8 July 2026.
PD HC 142 applies to litigants and parties as well as lawyers. Two 2026 Court of Appeal judgments concern self-represented litigants: Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (Costello P; appeal dismissed, five principles laid down) and Von Geitz v Kelly [2026] IECA 29 (Allen J; submissions with 'a few non-existent cases', appeals dismissed, verification held to be the litigant's own responsibility).
By scope rather than by dedicated rule. Court users under the Framework expressly include members of the public, whether appearing for themselves or others, for all submissions and evidence presentation, and users are personally responsible for the output.
The court guide applies to all court users, expressly including litigants in person, on the same terms as represented parties: use is permitted, responsibility is personal, and fabricated authorities attract costs. Four of the seven reported Singapore AI-citation cases involved self-represented parties.
Binding only in courts whose standing orders extend to self-represented parties: Judge Starr's certification and Judge Fuentes's order apply to pro se filers as well as counsel. There is no judiciary-wide guidance for litigants in person.
A separate non-lawyer version of the guidelines exists. The judicial version tells judges that lay litigants often cannot verify AI legal information and may not know it is error-prone, and that it may be appropriate to ask what accuracy checks they made. Every reported New Zealand AI-citation case has involved a self-represented party.
Judiciary guidance addresses litigants in person using AI and warns judges to check citations, and it is reinforced by a line of tribunal decisions: Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) (nine fabricated authorities, appeal dismissed — the first reported UK case), Bandla v SRA [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin) (about 27 non-existent authorities cited by a struck-off solicitor acting in person) and Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC) (ChatGPT-sourced authorities; tribunal noted such conduct may amount to contempt).
No court guidance exists for self-represented litigants. The draft Supreme Court regulations would extend the AI-use declaration to parties. The Delhi High Court in September 2025 treated a homebuyers' association petition built on ChatGPT-fabricated citations as impermissible and allowed withdrawal under threat of further action.
The Case Database entry from Tongzhou applies to litigation participants generally, and a Hubei Dawu County court admonished a self-represented plaintiff who filed AI-watermarked fabricated utility-bill photographs in November 2025.
No guidance document. TA Grenoble (3 Dec 2025, no. 2509827 and 9 Dec 2025, no. 2512468) rejected submissions by self-represented litigants built on fabricated case references, warning that generative AI is 'totalement inadapté à cet usage'; the second applicant had left the chatbot dialogue in the pleading.
Both leading rulings arose from filings by a litigant, Nayan Mansukhlal Savla. The March 2026 ruling struck out the AI-generated notice of motion and affidavit for breach of Order 51 rule 13 and Order 19 rules 4-5, holding the defects incurable by amendment but permitting a fresh compliant filing. No court guidance for self-represented litigants exists.
The District Court in Wrocław dismissed a claim drafted with ChatGPT, holding that AI output 'may be treated only as part of a party's argumentation' and does not constitute evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. No court guidance for self-represented parties exists.
No court guidance for self-represented parties. The Superior Court of Justice noted in June 2025 that small-claims litigants may lawfully use AI-drafted petitions, but issued no guidance.
No EU-level guidance for self-represented litigants using AI; the e-Justice Portal offers no AI-specific advice and the issue is left to national courts.
No Hong Kong court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026, although both reported Hong Kong AI-citation cases involved unrepresented parties. In Licksun the plaintiff's list of authorities was said to have been prepared by a non-legally-trained employee.
No rules addressing self-represented litigants' AI use. The e-Court framework (PERMA 1/2019 as amended by PERMA 7/2022) permits registered non-advocate users but says nothing about AI.
No international body has issued guidance for self-represented litigants using AI as of 4 September 2026. UNESCO principles on equality of arms and Ciarb 6.3 touch on unequal AI access but are addressed to courts and tribunals, not to litigants.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Procedure 01-26 is expressly limited to judges and court staff and does not address litigants or lawyers.
No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI as of 4 September 2026, although Norwegian commentary flags a rise in AI-assisted self-representation.
No guidance for self-represented parties using AI found as of 4 September 2026, despite the Eskilstuna case and Swedish legal-press coverage of the issue.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 for self-represented parties using AI. The TBB Guide is addressed to lawyers, trainee lawyers and law-office staff only.
No guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026; the DIFC guidance note is addressed to parties in proceedings generally.
No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI was located; the courts' public portal could not be searched. Position not determined as of 4 September 2026.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Self-represented litigants" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/litigant-in-person (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Australia
Canada
Ireland
Philippines
Singapore
United States
New Zealand
United Kingdom
India
China
France
Kenya
Poland
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
European Union
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Indonesia
International bodies
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Türkiye
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Czechia
Finland
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Thailand
Vietnam